Absolvitor is shocked, suprised and saddened to read of "bunfights", "skulduggery" and "ambition, jealousy and outrage" at the Supreme Court - all over who would be the new Justice at the country's highest court.

According to Frances Gibb at The Times (and picked up by Charon QC) all is not as it seems in the appointment of the Supreme Court's No. 12. Specifically - the circumstances in which Jonathan "brain the size of a planet" Sumption QC was first of all seen as a shoo-in for the job and, then ... not so much.

In the words of Steve H, posting a comment on Gibb's article online: "Let us have excellence at the top, not rewards for time serving at the upper staff college level."

Labels: Blawgs, UK Supreme Court

Professor Neil Walker of the University of Edinburgh today (22 Jan 2010) published his report to the Scottish Government on the position of the new (UK) Supreme Court within the context of the current constitutional settlement (in Scotland).

As you know, the current position is that in civil cases, a right of appeal lies from the Inner House of the Court of Session to the Supreme Court. In criminal matters, the High Court of Justiciary (sitting in an appellate capacity) is the final court of appeal. Unless there is a "devolution matter" raised (usually a human rights point), in which case the Supreme Court will take a look. Happy so far? Good.

It is also worth noting that civil appeals to the Supreme Court from the Court of Session do not require leave to appeal (from either Court) - unlike in England & Wales.

So, Prof. Walker (ably assisted by a select steering group comprising Sir David Edward, David Johnston QC and Prof. Tom Mullen) has now delivered his view on appeals to the Supreme Court concluding as follows:

1. If Scotland were to become independent, then the judicial system should also be independent, with all cases being determined in Scots courts and no further appeal to the Supreme Court.
2. Under current arrangements (devolution), then in cases (civil or criminal) involving only devolved issues - the Court of Session / High Court should be the final stage of appeal. However in cases (civil or criminal) which involve a reserved matter (e.g. employment law or tax fraud) then a final appeal should lie to the Supreme Court.

I happened to share a train back from Edinburgh today with one of the steering group, who was kind enough to share his thoughts on some of the implications. For what it's worth, I share the view that if Scotland became an independent country, then rights of appeal to the Supreme Court should cease altogether. If we're leaving home, then those apron strings must be cut too (is that the correct expression?).

The proposals for the devolution (or "devo-max") scenario would involve a decrease in the number of Scottish civil cases being heard by the Supreme Court, but an increase in the numbers of criminal cases. Such changes would also require to be enacted (at least in part) by the Westminster Parliament, rather than by Holyrood alone.

The prohibition in the Act of Union 1707 that "no Causes in Scotland be cognoscible by the Courts of Chancery, Queens-Bench, Common-Pleas, or any other Court in Westminster-hall;" (Article 19) has presumably been overcome now that the Supreme Court has moved across the street to Parliament Square?

Labels: criminal law, Inner House, News, Scottish Government, UK Supreme Court

I've finally got round to updating the Courts & Case Law links page to include the Supreme Court and to reflect the change to the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The House of Lords' judicial committee page is also still running, as an archive of their decisions between 1996 and 2009.

Better late than never, I always say ...

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: House of Lords, site updates, UK Supreme Court

Breaking news from the Christian Legal Centre:

Alison Davis is seeking to challenge the House of Lords' ruling on Debbie Purdy's assisted suicide case today in the Supreme Court. The decision was made at the end of July and required the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, to publicise his policy on prosecuting cases of assisted suicide. It came in response to the legal challenge by Debbie Purdy, multiple sclerosis sufferer, who wished to ensure that her husband would not face prosecution for helping her to travel to Zurich to commit suicide there. The House of Lords' decision overturned the judgments of the High Court and the Court of Appeal and required Mr Starmer "to prepare an offence-specific policy identifying the facts and circumstances which he will take into account in deciding whether or not to consent to a prosecution".

The deadline for Alison Davis to challenge the House of Lords' decision is today. Alison Davis's challenge claims that Lord Phillips, senior Law Lord at the time and now President of the Supreme Court was biased in favour of assisted suicide when he and the other four Law Lords made the decision that the law on assisted suicide was "unclear" and required offence-specific guidance for prosecutors concerned with deciding whether to prosecute a suspect for assisting the suicide of another person. Miss Davis's evidence centres on Lord Phillips' comments in The Daily Telegraph on 10th September 2009, in which he expressed "enormous sympathy" for terminally-ill patients who want to commit suicide, but need assistance to do so.

Lord Phillips said in his interview with The Daily Telegraph: "I have enormous sympathy with anyone who finds themselves facing a quite hideous termination of their life as a result of one of these horrible diseases, in deciding they would prefer to end their life more swiftly and avoid that death as well as avoiding the pain and distress that might cause their relatives."

Alison Davis of No Less Human will present a petition arguing that Lord Phillips' personal sympathy invalidates the House of Lords' last decision, in the same way that Lord Hoffman's links to Amnesty International did when he gave a judgment in the case regarding the immunity from prosecution of General Augusto Pinochet of Chile. The legal challenge states that the Purdy ruling is "vitiated by the principle of apparent bias", and that "the decision of the former House of Lords is 'unconstitutional' and usurps the powers of Parliament". It calls for the Supreme Court to be convened "to reconsider and hear fresh argument on the case of Purdy". The argument continues: "the expression of the private 'political' view of Lord Phillips in The Daily Telegraph after the judgement clearly raises a question in the minds of reasonable and informed people of apparent bias".

Miss Davis, a wheelchair user with spina bifida, hydrocephalus, emphysema, osteoporosis and arthritis, wrote a letter to accompany her case papers. She said: "The DPP's guidelines are unfair, unjust, and fatally discriminatory against suffering people, who deserve the same presumption in favour of life as any able bodied person would automatically receive. They have no place in a civilised society."

Campaigners, argue that Lord Phillips' personal sympathy for those who wanted to commit suicide means that the proposed interim prosecution policy should not be finalised. The changes made by the interim policy could make it easier for people to coerce their family members, friends or the people for whom they care into killing themselves.

The Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini QC, has already indicated that no similar guidance will be issued in Scotland, stating that "The Crown recognises the importance of this issue, but any change in the current law related to homicide is properly a matter for the Scottish Parliament."

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: criminal law, House of Lords, Law and Ethics, News, Scottish Parliament, UK Supreme Court