The Summary Justice Review Committee: REPORT TO MINISTERS
Footnotes
1 Copies of these pieces of research can be found on the Scottish Executive's Website: www.scotland.gov.uk .
2 Summary Justice Review: Public Views on Key Issues, George Street Research Ltd. Summary Justice Review - Survey of Offenders (2003), George Street Research (for Scottish Executive social research). Linda Nicholson & Diarmid Campbell-Jack. A copy of this research can be found on the Scottish Executive's Website: www.scotland.gov.uk.
3 Figures supplied by Scottish Court Service.
4 Proposals for the Integration of Aims, Objectives and Targets in the Scottish Criminal Justice System, Andrew C Normand CB, Crown Agent. Scottish Executive (2003).
5 Smith v HMA 1952 JC 66.
6 Police (Scotland) Act 1967, section 17(1)(b).
7 Police (Scotland) Act 1967, section 17(3).
8 Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, section 12.
9 See paragraph 7.31 for more information on the history of justices of the peace.
10 Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, section 7(8).
11 A majority of responses to the consultation exercise were opposed to a single level of court, but it appears from the terms of their responses that their concern focused not on the issue of who administered the courts but on the issue of whether justices should continue to exercise a separate, lower tier jurisdiction in the summary court. The responses to consultation are therefore considered in more detail in chapter 7, which deals with that latter issue.
12 Information provided by district courts in response to survey carried out on behalf of the Committee.
13 Integration of Scottish Criminal Justice Information Systems.
14 This research is available on the Scottish Executive website: www.scotland.gov.uk.
15 Z K Bankowski, N R Hutton & J J McManus, Lay Justice (1987) T & T Clark
16 Johan Findlay, All Manner of People - The History of the justices of the peace in Scotland (2000) The Saltire Society
17 Rod Morgan & Neil Russell, The Judiciary in the Magistrates Courts, (2000) Report for Lord Chancellor's Department
18 Summary Justice Review: Public Views on Key Issues, Linda Nicholson, George Street Research, 2003
19 Session 1972-73 Cmnd.5241 (presented March 1973).
20 Statement on Summary Justice made by the Secretary of State in Parliament on 18 October 1973.
21 2000 asp 9.
22 Clark v Kelly. 2003 SCCR 194.
23 Improving Practice - 2002 Review of the Practices and Procedure of the High Court of Justiciary.
24 For a more detailed account of the history see Findlay, J: All Manner of People - The History of the justices of the peace in Scotland, The Saltire Society (2000) Chapter 1.
25 The Laws of Scotland, Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia, Vol 14 para 27.
26 For more information on the development of justices of the peace in Scotland see chapter 2 of All Manner of People, note 16, supra.
27 The Right Honourable Lord Justice Auld, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales, The Stationery Office (2001).
28 Note 27, supra.
29 The Committee was unable to discover any recent figures on the proportion of cases of failed fiscal fines which are subsequently prosecuted. Data from work carried out in the mid-1990s suggested, however, that at that point around 80% of failed fiscal fines were subsequently prosecuted. The most common reasons for non-prosecution were that the offender had absconded or the case was time barred. (Peter Duff Fiscal Fines; the operation of Section 56 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 The Scottish Office Home Department Central Research Unit, 1996).
30 Peter Duff, Fiscal Fines; the operation of Section 56 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 The Scottish Office Home Department Central Research Unit, 1996.
31 Note 17, supra.
32 This research is available on the Scottish Executive's website: www.scotland.gov.uk.
33 Note 17, supra.
34 Partners in Crime - Solving and Reassuring - A Thematic Inspection of Crime Management in Scotland - HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, 2003. Para 6.7.
35 Mowbray v Crowe 1993 SCCR 736.
36 2nd report, paras. 3.16-3.18.
37 2nd report, para. 3.05.
38 The Fixed Penalty (Amendment) Order 2003 and the Fixed Penalty Offences Order 2003, both made under section 51(3) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, came into effect on 1 June 2003.
39 See Home Office website (www.homeoffice.gov.uk) under "Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 Penalty Notices for Disorder pilots".
40 For further details see the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service Prosecution Code published in 2001.
41 Recommendation 18 of the ACPOS/COPFS joint protocol on police reports, states that "Area fiscals and Chief Constables should identify categories of offences in respect of which they agree that they may be reported in an abbreviated format. Any such agreement should be reviewed annually as should the capacity to extend it to other offences".
42 The COP (criminal operations) system is the IT system used by the Scottish Court Service to manage criminal court business. COPII will be the successor system that is currently under development and is due to be rolled out to every sheriff court by 2006. It will be a more advanced system, offering increased functionality and potential.
43 Keeping Offenders out of Court; Further Alternatives to Prosecution - The Second Report of the Stewart Committee, 1983, Cmnd.8958.
44 Note 2 , supra
45 paras. 3.19-3.29.
46 para. 3.29.
47 The Review of the Crown Prosecution Service, Chairman: Rt. Hon. Sir Iain Glidewell, Cmnd. 3972, June 1998.
48 Penman v HM Advocate, 1999 S.C.C.R 740.
49 Stirling v Herron 1976 SLT (Notes) 2.
50 On sentence discounting more generally see paragraphs 14.12 to 14.21.
51 Scottish Law Commission Report No. 137 Evidence: Report on Documentary Evidence and Proof of Undisputed Facts in Criminal Proceedings (1992).
52 J. Langbein, The Origins of Adversarial Criminal Trial (Oxford University Press, 2003).
53 Scottish Law Commission, Report on Documentary Evidence and Proof of Undisputed Facts in Criminal Proceedings (SLC No 137) (1992).
54 See, Scottish Law Commission, Report on Hearsay Evidence in Criminal Proceedings (SLC No 149) (1995).
55 See, generally, Scottish Law Commission (1995).
56 Scottish Law Commission (1995), paras 7.10-11.
57 Scottish Law Commission, Discussion Paper No 77, Affidavit Evidence, Hearsay and Related Matters in Criminal Proceedings, Part 4 (1988).
58 Scottish Law Commission (1992) paras 4.19-21.
59 These figures cover sheriff solemn and summary, but the overwhelming majority relate to summary trial hearings (96% of cases concluded in the sheriff court in 2002-3 were summary cases). Comparable figures are not available for failure to appear in the district court.
60 R v Jones[2002] 2 All ER 113.
61 Holland v HMA. 2003 SLT 1119.
62 1995 Act, section 238(2).
63 1995 Act, section 228(5).
64 Excludes district courts. Only sheriff court data available.
65 Adjournments Of Summary Criminal Cases In The Sheriff Courts: Fiona Leverick and Peter Duff, Aberdeen University School of Law.
66 Hutton N. and Tata C "What Rules in Sentencing: Consistency and Disparity in the absence of Rules" International Journal of the Sociology of Law December 1998, pp 349-364.
Hutton N and Tata C (1995) Patterns of Custodial Sentencing in the Sheriff Court, Scottish Office Central Research Unit, Edinburgh.
Tata, C and Hutton N. Beyond the Technology of Quick Fixes: Will the judiciary act to protect itself and shore up judicial independence? Recent experience from Scotland. Federal Sentencing Reporter, vol 16 no 1 October 2003 pp1-9.
Miller, Marc.2004. "Sentencing Reform: 'The Sentencing Information System Alternative to Sentencing Guidelines." In The Future of Imprisonment edited by Michael Tonry. New York: Oxford University Press.
Henham, R (2000) On the philosophical and theoretical implications of judicial decision support systems, International Review of Law Computers and Technology, Vol 14 no 3 pages 283-296.
67 Du Plooy v HMA 2003 SCCR 640.
68 The exception being the system recently introduced in Multnomah County, Oregon, USA.
69 See generally: M Tonry and R. Frase (eds), Sentencing and Sanctions in Western Countries (2001); N Hutton and C Tata.
70 Scottish Court Service Annual Report 2002-2003.
71 Table relates to 2002 calendar year.
72 This includes bills of suspension and petitions to the Nobile Officium.
73 Includes seven cases where the trial court was the stipendiary Magistrates court.
74 Includes cases where the trial court was the High Court or the Sheriff Solemn court.
75 Source: Costs, Sentencing Profiles and the Scottish Criminal Justice System, 2001 (Scottish Executive).
76 Includes court type not known.
77 Includes probation and community service.
78 Includes fines and compensation orders.
79 Mainly admonition.
80 Note 75, supra.
81 Summary Justice Review - Survey of Offenders (2003), George Street Research (for Scottish Executive Social Research). Linda Nicholson and Diarmid Campbell-Jack.
82 March 2003.
83 See section 36 and Schedule 3 of the English Courts Act 2003 for an example of a legislative framework empowering fines officers with powers to alter payment arrangements and time to pay.
84 Survey of Offenders, supra, p31-32.
85 National Evaluation of the Operation and Impact of Supervised Attendance Orders - Liz Levy and Gil McIvor, Social Work Research Centre, University of Stirling. Published by Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, (2001).
86 See section 214(6) of the 1995 Act and section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (on deductions from benefit). See also Renton and Brown's Criminal Procedure, (6th Edition)
W Green & Son/Sweet and Maxwell, 1996 - para 23-58.
87 See the Fines (Deductions from Income Support) Regulations 1992, in particular section 4(1)(b) which details the priorities that outrank a fine. Section 10 deals with the review of such orders.
88 Renton and Brown, supra, 23-57.
89 Survey of Offenders, supra, p35 and table 9.7.
90 Section 95 of the Courts Act 2003, which amends s128(5) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.
91 See, in general, section 36 of the Courts Act which establishes fine officers and Schedule 3 which outlines the collection of fines by fine officers and the powers that they have.
92 Schedule 3, para 8.
93 Schedule 3, para 16.
94 In circumstances where a disposal of this nature is required the fines officer is empowered to refer the case back to the magistrates' court by virtue of Schedule 3, para 17.
95 Courts Act 2003, Schedule 3, Para 9.
96 Para 12.
97 Para 13.
98 Para 15.
99 See Paras 33.20 - 33.22.
100 More information on ISCJIS can be found at http://www.scro.police.uk/iscjis.htm.
101 Dealing with Offending by Young People, Audit Scotland, December 2002.