The Scottish Government

ATTENDANCE AT AN ID PROCEDURE WILL BECOME A STANDARD CONDITION OF BAIL

When an accused is released on bail, section 24 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 requires that the court always imposes standard bail conditions. These conditions are a behavioural framework that the accused is required to comply with while going through the court process. The standard conditions are that the accused:

• appears at the appointed time at every diet relating to the offence with which he is charged of which he is given due notice;
• does not commit an offence while on bail;
• does not interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice whether in relation to himself or any other person;
• does not behave in a manner which causes, or is likely to cause, alarm or distress to witnesses; and
• makes himself available for the purpose of enabling enquiries or a report to be made to assist the court in dealing with him for the offence with which he is charged.

Section 24 of the 1995 Act permits the court to impose additional further conditions. A commonly imposed further condition is to require the accused to make themselves available to participate in an identification procedure.

In recent years, the use of identification procedures in criminal cases is rising. The amount of crime being prosecuted at solemn level (where identification procedures are more likely to be used) is increasing, and the roll-out of vulnerable witness legislation has also led to greater use of identification procedures to reduce the need for identification of the accused in court.

We propose to make the requirement for an accused to participate in an ID procedure a standard condition of bail.

BENEFIT OF MAKING THE PROPOSED CHANGE

Will free up court time as the procurator fiscal will no longer be required to take up court time by asking the court to impose the requirement to participate in an ID procedure as a further condition.

We propose to remove the requirement for a hearing to give consideration to an application made under section 30 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 where i) the other party consents to the application and ii) the court is minded to grant the application. An example of an application under this section would be an accused seeking to have the hours of a curfew bail condition altered (perhaps as a result of their working hours changing).

The mirror provisions, allowing applications for bail review by the Crown, are to be found in section 31 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. An example of an application being made by the Crown might be where the prosecutor has received information that the accused has breached one of his or her bail conditions or where the accused has moved to a new address and his or her representative has not sought to review the domicile of citation to make an equivalent amendment.

The proposal to amend sections 30 and 31 would allow the court to deal with applications made under this section in chambers without the need for a hearing, but only if certain circumstances exist. These circumstances are as follows:

• The other party consents to the application; and
• The court considers it appropriate to grant the application.

The removal of the requirement to hold a hearing in these circumstances seems reasonable and will benefit the court from saving valuable time in holding unnecessary court hearings.

BENEFIT OF MAKING THE PROPOSED CHANGE

Reducing the number of court hearings thus making better use of court time, minimising inconvenience to solicitors and the Crown and swifter review of bail conditions in the event of a change of circumstances.

SPOUSAL COMPELLABILITY

In criminal proceedings in Scotland, any person who has information about a crime may be cited as a witness by either the Crown or by the accused. A witness who is permitted by law to testify is known as a competent witness, and any witness who can be required to attend court to give evidence is known as a compellable witness. A competent and compellable witness who fails to give evidence may be guilty of contempt of court.

However, under section 264 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (the "1995 Act") and section 130 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (the "2004 Act") there is an exception to this rule which can lead to a witness not being required to give evidence. This occurs when a witness is the spouse or civil partner of the accused, and the accused is alleged to have committed an offence other than against their spouse or civil partner.

On 5 May 2008, we announced plans to repeal section 264 of the 1995 Act and section 130 of the 2004 Act. This followed a consultation on this issue by the previous administration published in June 2006 with an analysis of the consultation being published in November 2006.

Relevant weblinks

Consultation paper on Scottish Executive proposals for amending the law on compellability of spousal witnesses - June 2006

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/06/21135942/0

Analysis of responses to the consultation on Compellability of Spousal Witnesses - November 2006

http://openscotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/11/spousalwitnessreport/Q/Page/3

Scottish Government announcing intention to repeal law in relation to spousal compellability - May 2008

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2008/05/02150833

BENEFIT OF MAKING THE PROPOSED CHANGE

Spouses who have been able to use section 264 of the 1995 Act will no longer be able to escape justice.

ANONYMITY OF WITNESSES AND VICTIMS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

We are currently considering the implications of the recent change in the law in England and Wales that enables courts there to permit witnesses to give their evidence with a degree of anonymity where that is considered to be appropriate. This follows a recent House of Lords decision in the case of R v Davis. If it is decided to bring forward legislative provisions in Scotland, it is possible the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill will be used.

ALLOWING WITNESSES TO SEE THEIR STATEMENTS TO REFRESH THEIR MEMORY BEFORE GIVING EVIDENCE

Lord Coulsfield's 'Review of the Law and Practice of Disclosure in Criminal Proceedings in Scotland' was published in August 2007. The report noted that, although not strictly an issue of disclosure, there was support that witnesses should be able to refer to copies of their statements when called to give evidence in court, in all cases where these statements have been made available to the Crown and to the defence.

Most respondents to the consultation exercise on disclosure agreed that witnesses should be able to refer to copies of their statements when called to give evidence but caution was expressed regarding quality of statements.

We are proposing to bring forward provisions to:

• Provide for witnesses to see a copy of their statements, in all cases where these statements have been made available to the Crown and to the defence, in advance of a trial; and
• Define what 'statements' are.

Much of the detail of how the system will operate will be included in the Code of Practice.

Relevant weblinks

Lord Coulsfield's 'Review of the Law and Practice of Disclosure in Criminal proceedings in Scotland' - August 2007

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/09/11092728/0

Scottish Government consultation paper on proposals for legislation to implement the recommendations in the Coulsfield report - November 2007

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/11/09145246/0

Responses received to consultation - March 2008

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/03/12145347/0

Scottish Government announcement - April 2008

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/04/24084456/0

BENEFIT OF MAKING THE PROPOSED CHANGE

Reference to previous statements of witnesses enables them to be reminded of things they might otherwise have forgotten and it enables the credibility and reliability of the evidence in court to be tested by reference to statements made nearer the time of events.

JURISDICTION FOR OFFENCES UNDER PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1906

We intend to extend the jurisdiction of district/Justice of the Peace courts so that they can deal with cases involving offences under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. In simple terms, the 1889 Act provides that a person in public office who is involved in any form of corrupt practice in connection with their work is guilty of an offence. The 1906 Act provides that any employee who carries out activity in a corrupt manner is guilty of an offence.

Currently, offences prosecuted under the 1889 Act and the 1906 Act can be prosecuted either in the solemn or summary courts. In the case of summary prosecution though, it is only the sheriff summary courts that are permitted to deal with cases. Renewal provisions will be brought forward to allow district/Justice of the Peace courts to be able to deal with these offences. Prosecutions will still be permitted in the sheriff summary or solemn courts for these offences. In practice, it is unlikely that significant numbers of cases will be dealt with in the district/ JP court.

BENEFIT OF MAKING THE PROPOSED CHANGE

Will remove an unnecessary restriction on which courts can deal with corruption offences.

IMPROVING PROCEDURES FOR SERVICE OF INDICTMENTS AND DOCUMENTS IN SOLEMN PROCEEDINGS

The current provisions for the service of indictments and other documents in criminal proceedings are set out in section 72G of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (the "1995 Act") and Rules 2.2A and 2.3A of the Act of Adjournal (Criminal Procedure Rules) 1996.

Section 72G of the 1995 Act, as amended by paragraph 13(2) to the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007, provides that:

"In any solemn proceedings, anything which is to be served on or given, notified or otherwise intimated to, the accused shall be taken to be so served, given, notified or intimated if it is, in such form and manner as may be prescribed by Act of Adjournal, served on or given, notified or intimated to… the solicitor [who has notified the prosecutor that he is engaged by the accused and has not informed the prosecutor that he has been dismissed by or has withdrawn from acting for, the accused…… at that solicitor's place of business"

Section 72 provision creates a practical problem relating to the mechanism of service at "…the solicitor's place of business".

A strict reading of section 72G of the 1995 Act and rule 2.32A of the Act of Adjournal requires that service of the indictment and citation on a solicitor can be effected only at the solicitor's place of business and requires that either the solicitor or his or her partner/employee is present. This means that if a solicitor has no formal place of business, the indictment cannot be served on him or her. It means also that if he or she has a place of business but is a sole practitioner with no employees and he or she is at court, at a police office or elsewhere on other business (or, if the indictment requires to be served outwith normal business hours), for the indictment to be served on him or her, both he or she and the indictment (and police officer serving it) require to travel to the place of business. This is inconvenient to both the solicitor and the police.

The same issue arises in respect of the service of other documents on solicitors in solemn proceedings with one significant difference, namely that for documents other than the indictment and citation, service need not be effected at the solicitor's place of business.

We propose to remove the requirement for the solicitor (or his partner/employee) to be at his or her place of business at the time of service. Instead, the indictment (and any other document) could be served on the solicitor in an analogous manner to service on the accused.

BENEFIT OF MAKING THE PROPOSED CHANGE

Greater certainty of lawful service of documents in cases where an accused has or may abscond and minimising inconvenience to police officers and to solicitors.

PROSECUTION OF PARTNERSHIPS

Section 70 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 deals with proceedings on indictment against corporate bodies. It provides for how the indictment is served, appearance by a representative for certain purposes, and for recovery of fines. While limited liability partnerships are covered, section 70 does not make provision about partnerships or other unincorporated associations.

In contrast, section 143 of the same Act, which deals with summary procedure, specifically provides for how proceedings may be brought against partnerships, unincorporated associations, and bodies of trustees as well as bodies corporate.

We propose to widen the provisions of section 70 to cover partnerships, associations and bodies of trustees to bring it in line with section 143.

We also intend to extend sections 70 and 143 to other entities not already covered, such as government departments.

BENEFIT OF MAKING THE PROPOSED CHANGE

Will tidy up the law, clarify how procedures against partnerships should operate, and ensure there is consistency between the provisions of sections 70 and 143.

ADDRESSING ISSUES THAT CAN OCCUR WHEN A CHANGE IN THE HOLDER OF THE OFFICE OF LORD ADVOCATE TAKES PLACE

Section 64 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 provides that all prosecutions before the High Court of Justiciary or before the Sheriff sitting with a jury shall proceed on indictment in name of Her Majesty's Advocate.

A strict reading of the provision means that that the indictment requires to run in the personal name of the Lord Advocate, rather than by her official title as "Her Majesty's Advocate". Where the Lord Advocate dies or demits office and is immediately succeeded by a new Lord Advocate, without the office of Lord Advocate being vacant for any period, the correct libelling of indictments relies on knowing the precise point at which the warrant of appointment was signed. In practice, this causes administrative difficulties for the Crown in ensuring that indictments are correctly libelled, having regard to the timing of demission and succession.

By extension, the same issue arises where the indictment may be in name of the Solicitor General (in the event of the death or demission of office of the Lord Advocate). If the Solicitor General were then to die or demit office and be succeeded while the office of Lord Advocate remained vacant the same administrative difficulties arise.

We propose to amend the current provisions to make clear that:

• Accused persons, against whom proceedings are to be raised before the High Court of Justiciary or a Sheriff sitting with a jury, should be indicted at the instance of "Her Majesty's Advocate" but that there should be no requirement for the individual Lord Advocate to be named, personally;
• Accused persons indicted at the instance of the Solicitor General, the individual Solicitor General need not be named, personally; and
• The format of an indictment does not require to be changed on demission and appointment of either the Lord Advocate or Solicitor General.

BENEFIT OF MAKING THE PROPOSED CHANGE

Improved efficiency of processes for the Crown and a reduced risk of proceedings failing due only to error as to the timing of appointment.

REPEAL SECTION 169 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT 1995 - DETENTION AT A COURT OR POLICE STATION

Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 permits summary courts to detain an offender at court or at a police station until 8pm in lieu of imposing imprisonment, so long as the offender can get home that day. These provisions date back many years and exist in the 1995 Act as a result of consolidation of the law. In practice, the provisions in section 169 are not currently used, have not been used for a considerable number of years and are no longer of any practical use.

We propose that section 169 of the 1995 Act be repealed in its entirety.

BENEFIT OF MAKING THE PROPOSED CHANGE

Will tidy up the law.

REPEAL SECTION 206(1)-(6) OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT 1995 - INCLUDING UPPING MINIMUM CUSTODIAL SENTENCE FROM 5 DAYS TO 15 DAYS

Section 206(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 provides that a summary court cannot impose imprisonment for a period of less than five days. We intend that to change this minimum period from five days to fifteen days to reflect Scottish Government policy on the efficient use of custodial sentences.

We also intend to repeal subsections (2) to (6) of section 206 as they are redundant. These provisions permit the summary courts to sentence an offender to be detained in a certified police cell or similar place for up to 4 days. It is our understanding that there are no such certified police cells in Scotland, and have not been any for some time. This change will not affect "legalised police cells" under the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989, which can be used to detain prisoners before, during or after trial for up to 30 days.

BENEFIT OF MAKING THE PROPOSED CHANGE

Will ensure efficient use of custodial sentences and tidy up the law.

FORFEITURE OF PRODUCTIONS

Section 254 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 implies that forfeiture may be competent when the productions are not present in court. It permits the court to issue a search warrant in respect of forfeited property in certain circumstances. There has been doubt expressed as to whether forfeiture is competent when productions are not present in court. While section 254 of the 1995 Act implies that forfeiture may be competent there is no express provision as to the competency of doing so.

On one reading of section 254 it is implicit in the section that property can competently be forfeited notwithstanding that it is not physically in court. It is equally implicit in section 33A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 that motor vehicles may be forfeited notwithstanding their not being in court. Practice, however, seems to vary; forfeiture has taken place where the property is not in the court but the location of the property is known. If the court requires that a production is in court the diet can be adjourned until the property is brought to court. For those cases this causes some inconvenience and increases the number of ineffective court hearings.

We propose to make clear that the court, in ordering forfeiture of any article whether at common law or in exercising any statutory power, may do so notwithstanding that the article is not physically within the court.

BENEFIT OF MAKING THE PROPOSED CHANGE

Improved efficiency of court processes for the Crown and making best use of court time by avoiding unnecessary hearings.

DISCLOSURE OF POST OFFENCE CONVICTIONS TO THE COURT IN SOLEMN CASES AND DISCLOSURE OF ACCEPTED POST OFFENCE ALTERNATIVES TO PROSECUTION

The Criminal Proceedings etc. (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007 introduced section 166A into the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (the "1995 Act") as follows:

"Where a person is convicted of an offence on summary complaint, the court may, in deciding on the disposal of the case, have regard to any convictions which:

• were imposed on the person between the date of the offence and the date of conviction in respect of the offence;
• are specified in a notice laid before the court by the prosecutor; and
• are admitted by the person; or
• proved by the prosecutor on evidence adduced then or at another diet."

When considering the most suitable disposal for an offender, section 166A allows the court in summary proceedings to have regard to convictions acquired by the offender between the date they commit a further offence and the date they are convicted in respect of this further offence. However, this provision does not currently apply to solemn proceedings and it is proposed that these provisions should also apply in solemn cases.

Sections 166(9) and (10) of the 1995 Act allow for certain alternatives to prosecution which have been accepted or deemed to be accepted to be disclosed to the court if they occurred within the two years preceding the date of the offence charged. These alternatives to prosecution are fiscal fines, compensation offers and work offers.

These alternatives to prosecution do not however come within the definition of section 166A and accordingly, if an alternative to prosecution was accepted or deemed to be accepted after the date of the offence charged, then this could not be disclosed to the court.

The provisions of section 166A are designed to ensure that as full a picture as possible of the accused's offending behaviour is made available in order to assist the court in sentencing. Including alternatives to prosecution accepted, or deemed to have been accepted, following the date of the offence would also be of valuable assistance to the court.

Given the increased powers now available to the Crown to deal with offences by way of alternatives to prosecution it is possible, depending upon the particular facts and circumstances of a case, that an accused person could be offered an alternative to prosecution by the Crown even if there were a pending case in which court proceedings had been taken.

In light of the fact that alternatives to prosecution accepted in the 2 years preceding an offence may now be disclosed to the court, and post offence convictions can be disclosed, we propose that post offence alternatives to prosecution should also be able to be disclosed to the court as regards offending which post-dates the offence.

BENEFIT OF MAKING THE PROPOSED CHANGE

Will allow the solemn court to have access to further relevant information when deciding the most suitable disposal for an offender and will allow the court as full a picture as possible as to the accused's circumstances to assist with sentencing decisions.

CHANGES TO THE DISCLOSURE OF PROCURATOR FISCAL "WORK ORDERS" TO THE COURT

We propose to make minor changes to the way in which alternatives to prosecution can be disclosed to the court in criminal proceedings. Work offers were introduced into the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (the "1995 Act") by virtue of the Criminal Proceedings etc. (Reform) (Scotland) 2007 Act. Work offers are a type of alternative to prosecution that the procurator fiscal can offer to a person accused of an offence where a period of unpaid work is undertaken by the accused instead of a prosecution being taken forward.

Section 303ZA(3)(e)(iii) of the 1995 Act provides that if a work offer is accepted and made but not completed, that fact may be disclosed to the court in any proceedings for the offence to which the work offer relates. It does not, however, require the alleged offender to be informed of the fact that work offers which are not accepted can be disclosed to the court in respect of proceedings relating to the offence for which the offer was made. Such a disclosure can be made under section 101(11) (solemn proceedings) or section 166(11) (summary proceedings) however. We intend to change this to bring the information given in relation to a work offer into line with other types of alternative to prosecution available to the procurator fiscal (fiscal fines and compensation offers).

In addition, section 166(10)(b) of the 1995 Act provides that a work order "completed in the two years preceding the date of the offence charged" can be disclosed to the court in relation to proceedings for a subsequent offence. However, section 303ZA(3)(e)(ii) of the 1995 Act provides that a work offer shall state that the fact that a work offer has been accepted may be disclosed to the court in any proceedings for an offence committed within the period of two years beginning on the date of acceptance of the offer. These provisions are inconsistent and it is proposed that the relevant date for the start of the 2 year period should be the date of completion of a work order which is when it becomes a final disposal. This would be consistent with the provisions relating to fiscal fines and compensation offers which can be disclosed for two years from the date of acceptance or deemed acceptance as fiscal fines and compensation orders become final at that stage. Suitable provisions will therefore be brought forward.

BENEFIT OF MAKING THE PROPOSED CHANGE

Will improve consistency in the handling of different types of alternatives to prosecution and ensure the court has more complete information before it when dealing with a case.

AMENDMENT OF SUMMARY COMPLAINT TO INCLUDE FAILURE TO APPEAR CHARGE

We propose to permit a complaint in summary proceedings to be amended, prior to trial, to include a charge of failing to appear. In solemn proceedings, section 102A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 makes provision that an indictment can be amended at any time before trial to include the offence of failing to appear. Section 27(8) of the same Act makes similar provision for including a bail offence in solemn proceedings in an amended complaint. Equivalent provisions do not exist in relation to bail offences in summary cases or failure to appear in summary cases and we intend to bring forward suitable provisions.

BENEFIT OF MAKING THE PROPOSED CHANGE

Will improve the efficiency of Scotland's courts by removing the need for additional summary complaints which require to be raised by the Procurator Fiscal and dealt with by the court.

ALTERNATIVE VERDICTS REGARDING FRAUD, EMBEZZLEMENT AND BREACH OF TRUST

Paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 contains provision that enables a court to convict an offender of certain offences involving dishonest appropriation of property notwithstanding the fact that the indictment or summary complaint refers to an alternative offence. These provisions apply where the evidence led would not support conviction on the basis of the offence as charged but would support conviction of the alternative offence. For example, in terms of paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 3 an accused person charged with theft may instead be convicted of reset if the evidence led would not support conviction of theft but would support conviction of reset.

We propose to amend paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to provide that where an accused is charged under indictment or on complaint with "breach of trust and embezzlement" he or she may be convicted of fraud. Conversely, if charged with fraud he or she may be convicted instead of "breach of trust and embezzlement".

BENEFIT OF MAKING THE PROPOSED CHANGE

Will increase the flexibility for the court to convict an offender of a suitable alternative verdict if the evidence supports such an alternative verdict.

PROVISION FOR TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN JP COURTS

The unification of the summary courts under the administration of the Scottish Court Service is currently being rolled out on a sheriffdom-by-sheriffdom basis using provisions contained within the Criminal Proceedings etc. (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007. The first two phases of unification are now complete with district courts managed by local authorities replaced by Justice of the Peace courts ( JP courts) managed by the Scottish Court Service in the sheriffdoms of Lothian and Borders, and Grampian, Highland and Islands on 10 March 2008 and 2 June 2008 respectively.

In non-unified areas, the district court may sit at various locations in a sheriffdom. The frequency of sittings is determined by the level of business in the area. Where the district court sits infrequently at a particular location, it is common practice to move cases which require to call before the next sitting to a different location.

Upon unification, JP courts are established by reference to a particular sheriff court district (section 59(3) of the 2007 Act) and are therefore distinct from one another.

Sections 137A - 137C of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 provide for the transfer of business between sheriff courts. Section 137A provides for the transfer of proceedings to another sheriff court within the sheriffdom. Section 137B provides for the transfer of proceedings to a sheriff court in another sheriffdom either in exceptional circumstances or where proceedings are underway against the accused in the other court. Section 137C provides for the transfer of custody cases to the sheriff court in another sheriffdom where exceptional circumstances have led to an unusually high number of cases calling in the sheriffdom.

We propose that cases should be able to be transferred between JP courts in the same circumstances as specified in the section 137 provisions for sheriff courts.

BENEFIT OF MAKING THE PROPOSED CHANGE

Will make express provision for such transfers and enable more efficient court programming and allow full use to be made of the JP courts.

FAILURE OF AN ACCUSED TO APPEAR ON INDICTMENT

The failure to appear of an accused in solemn proceedings was made a statutory offence by section 102A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (the "1995 Act"), as introduced by section 32 of the Criminal Proceedings etc. (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007. Section 102A also makes provision for the granting of warrants to apprehend for the offence, and the procedure to be followed once an accused is apprehended.

The failure to appear in solemn proceedings usually constitutes a breach of bail conditions, an offence under section 27(7) of the 1995 Act. Section 102A(4)(b) provides that where a warrant has been granted under section 102A(2) for a failure to appear, the court may still grant a warrant on petition in respect of the same failure to appear under section 27(1)(a) or (7) of the 1995 Act. A warrant on petition could be used to commence separate solemn proceedings for the failure to appear.

As section 27(1)(a) relates only to a breach of bail by failing to appear in summary proceedings, a warrant will never be granted for that same failure to appear under section 102A. The relevant provision is section 27(7), which relates to breach of bail by failing to appear in solemn proceedings. We therefore propose that the reference to section 27(1)(a) in section 102A(4)(b) be removed.

BENEFIT OF MAKING THE PROPOSED CHANGE

Removal of an unnecessary reference will improve legislative clarity.

TIME LIMITS FOR LODGING APPEALS AGAINST DECISIONS ON CERTAIN PRELIMINARY MATTERS

Sections 74 and 174 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 make provision, in solemn and summary proceedings respectively, for appeals against a decision of the court at a preliminary hearing or first diet, as the case may be. Both sections provide that an appeal is to be lodged no later than two days after the decision.

In order to properly consider the merits of an appeal, parties require, amongst other things, to examine the exact details of the decision. It is often difficult to obtain this information within the two-day time limit. If that deadline passes, parties must use time consuming alternative procedures to ask the court to consider the matter. We therefore intend to extend the limit specified in both provisions to seven days.

BENEFIT OF MAKING THE PROPOSED CHANGE

By enabling both Crown and defence sufficient time to consider and lodge an appeal against a preliminary decision, the efficiency of the summary and solemn courts will be improved.