Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Lawscot Foundation

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. News and events
  3. Legal news
  4. Fixed penalty regime is ECHR compliant: Inner House

Fixed penalty regime is ECHR compliant: Inner House

23rd April 2020 | criminal law , human rights

The fixed penalty regime under part 11 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 is compatible with the right a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights, the Inner House of the Court of Session has ruled.

Lord President Carloway, Lord Malcolm and Lord Turnbull gave the decision in refusing an appeal by Jordan Queen, who claimed in a petition for judicial review that his inability to challenge a fixed penalty issued under the Act after 28 days had passed was incompatible with his rights under articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.

The petitioner had been issued by a constable with a £40 fixed penalty notice in August 2016. He stated that he was initially scared to tell his parents, but his father found the notice two weeks later and after speaking to the petitioner said he would deal with it for him. However he forgot to do so within the 28 day period allowed in the Act for requesting a trial of the alleged offence, and the penalty was then converted into one of £60, which fell to be treated as a fine imposed in the JP court.

At first instance the Lord Ordinary held that part 11 of the 2004 Act was compliant with ECHR article 6, as the petitioner was entitled to ask to be tried and was guaranteed a right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal. The only qualification was that the right had to be exercised within a stipulated time period. A separate argument based on article 13 was also rejected.

Before the Inner House the petitioner argued that he had been charged with a criminal offence and the payment was punitive in nature. He might be subject to further penalty or imprisonment through enforcement proceedings. The JP court would proceed on the basis that he had committed the offence, and there would be a public pronouncement of guilt at each hearing to which he was cited. He was therefore denied the presumption of innocence. His inability to demand a right to a hearing after the expiry of 28 days  meant that he was denied the right to a review before a court satisfying article 6.

Lord Turnbull, delivering the opinion of the court, said it was correct that the giving of a fixed penalty notice constituted a criminal charge for the purposes of article 6. However it was not correct to say that the petitioner remained subject to proceedings in the JP court that might result in a penalty. "The public prosecutor’s ability to bring criminal proceedings against the petitioner in respect of the offence was barred from the moment the notice was given to him. The petitioner’s right to request a trial expired 28 days after receipt of the notice. The criminal charge ceased to exist for any purpose from that point onwards."

A fines enquiry court would make no pronouncement on guilt or innocence, and it was incorrect to suggest that the petitioner might become liable to imprisonment in respect of an unpaid penalty: legislation required the court in that case to impose a community payback order. The petitioner would not acquire a criminal record, and in terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 the notice became spent at the time it was given.

He added: "The petitioner’s article 6 rights are not re-engaged after the point has been reached where there can be no prosecution. The penalty is fully determined at the expiry of the 28 day time period and the further procedure available under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 is concerned only with enforcement. That enforcement procedure is sufficiently flexible to be able to take account of the interests of justice."

Click here to view the opinion of the court. 

Add To Favorites

Additional

  • News and events

In this section

  • Law Society news
  • CPD & Training
  • Blogs & opinions
  • Events
  • 75th Anniversary

Categories

  • civil litigation
  • criminal law
  • employment
  • obituary
  • careers
  • practice management
  • law society of scotland
  • government-administration
  • welfare/benefits
  • family-child law
  • reparation
  • professional regulation
  • property (non-commercial)
  • insolvency
  • consumer
  • human rights
  • mental health-adult incapacity
  • planning/environment
  • europe
  • information technology
  • immigration
  • education-training
  • executries
  • corporate
  • commercial property
  • agriculture-crofting
  • dispute resolution
  • risk management
  • intellectual property
  • client relations
  • tax
  • licensing
  • banking-financial services
  • trusts-asset management
  • reviews
  • opinion
  • For the public
  • Research and policy
  • Regulation
  • Journal online news
  • interview

News Archive

  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013

Related articles

  • Consultation explores support for learning disabilities
  • Ministers will not appeal s 35 ruling, nor withdraw bill
  • Jury trials to return to the islands in spring
  • SCTS revises criminal case backlog predictions
Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited