Summary justice on trial

Solicitors have expressed concerns about the “bedding in” of the new Criminal Proceedings Reform Act, with concerns that a second batch of provisions due to be implemented in March will cause further confusion.

The measures introduced in December related to bail and remand, sentencing powers, JP courts and reforms to lay justice. The second phase involves changes to fines enforcement, alternatives to prosecution and the rolling out of court unification.

Peter Lockhart, a criminal lawyer in Ayr for 28 years and a member of the Society’s Criminal Law Committee, said: “It is proving quite complicated – it will take time to bed in. After March, we will get a better idea how successful the reform of summary justice will be.”

He explained that the new bail provisions had made little difference in the Ayr courts, though the situation was likely to vary across the country. The consequences of breaking bail, however, are being “hammered home” by sheriffs, with the bench emphasising the possible 12-month sentences for breaches.

Lockhart also questioned whether the new requirement to inform the court of a change of address within seven days would be enforceable when dealing with those who lead a chaotic lifestyle.

Time is being saved by new rules that allow the courts to dispense with background reports in certain circumstances, or with ordering a new report if another less than three months old already exists.

Fixed penalty concerns

However he expressed concern about how the fixed penalty system will operate when it is introduced on 10 March. “We are all a bit in the dark. The Criminal Law Committee has asked the Crown Office for a copy of the new style of fixed penalty notice and currently awaits a response. It is important that we know how much information will be provided to the accused: for instance exactly what offence they are charged with, and also that the conviction could be referred to at later hearings and would appear during a Disclosure Scotland check.

“Those who receive a fixed penalty notice would be well advised to seek legal advice at the earliest opportunity, particularly as someone who receives one will be deemed to have accepted it if they don’t respond to the fiscal.”

Raymond McMenamin, a solicitor-advocate at KW Law in Livingston, agreed that “it is going to be very difficult to advise people about fixed penalties unless we get more information about them. Also, it is difficult at the moment to get people to pay fines, so getting the new fiscal penalties to work will be difficult to organise, and could take up a lot of Crown resources”.

On the reforms already introduced, Raymond McMenamin, who is also a part-time sheriff, said: “Sheriffs and court practitioners will adapt to the new requirements to spell out bail conditions in ordinary language – most sheriffs have been doing that anyway. It will increase the time taken on each case, which could have a cumulative effect in courts with many cases, particularly since the conditions and consequences must now be stated to all accused.

“The condition that an accused must not cause alarm or distress to any witnesses is probably unnecessary, because that is already a breach of the peace and would break existing bail conditions not to offend or interfere with the administration of justice whilst on bail. The general feeling among many practitioners on both sides of the bench is that some provisions are probably unnecessary.”