* The PDF documents downloadable from this web site require that you have Adobe Reader installed. Get it free at Adobe.com
'IMPROVING PRACTICE' - The 2002 Review of the Practices and Procedure of the High Court of Justiciary by the Honourable Lord Bonomy
CHAPTER 1 THE REMIT
1.1 The first indication that there would be a Review of the High Court of Justiciary (the High Court) was given in October 2001, in a statement made to the Scottish Parliament by the Lord Advocate1, in laying before the Parliament the reports of two inquiries2 which he had ordered into the case concerning the murder of Surjit Singh Chhokar3. In particular, under reference to the report by Sir Anthony Campbell4, he announced a broad review of the internal systems of Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service, and went on to say this:
"But a wider review - going beyond the internal systems of the Crown Office - is needed to ensure the efficient and effective processing of High Court business which depends not only on the Crown but also on the efficiency of other parts of the criminal justice system. We need to consider all the factors which impinge on the management and processing of High Court business in Scotland with a view to improving and modernising these. The Deputy First Minister will commission such a Review"5.
1.2 On 14 December 2001 the Deputy First Minister announced my appointment to carry out that Review with this remit:
"To review the arrangements for High Court business at first instance in the light of the increasing demands made on the Court; to review the practices of the Court and those serving the Court and the rules of criminal procedure as they apply to the High Court; and to make recommendations with a view to making better use of Court resources in promoting the interests of justice".
1.3 When the Deputy First Minister confirmed my appointment, he also announced that a review of summary criminal business would be carried out by a Committee under the Chairmanship of Sheriff Principal John McInnes, Q.C., which would report in about 18 months time. I have been conscious throughout my Review that I could make proposals, such as increasing the sentencing powers of sheriffs, that could have an impact on the volume of business that the Sheriff Court was expected to conduct, and thus be relevant to the deliberations of the McInnes Committee on the business of the Sheriff Court at the other end of the criminal spectrum. Sheriff Principal McInnes and I both realised at an early stage that we should keep each other advised of our respective emerging ideas to minimise the risk of our combined proposals having any unexpected adverse impact on the Sheriff Court. Since I was expected to report first, it was important that I should keep the McInnes Committee advised of my thoughts. I have found my discussions with Sheriff Principal McInnes extremely helpful.
1.4 This Review relates to the work of the High Court of Justiciary at first instance, that is the work in court from the commencement of proceedings against an accused until he is sentenced or acquitted. The Review does not extend to the practices of the High Court of Justiciary as a Court of Criminal Appeal. Furthermore, the Review does not extend to the fundamental structure of the criminal justice system, whereby the burden of proving guilt is on the prosecution, and proceedings are conducted on an adversarial basis under which the prosecution and defence present their respective cases to a jury of fifteen members of the public selected by random ballot, who determine the guilt or acquittal of the accused. It also does not extend to the substantive criminal law or the law of evidence. In one sense, therefore, this is a very limited review. On the other hand, so far as the practices of the Court are concerned, the remit could hardly be wider.