Coronavirus Recovery and Reform (Scotland) Act 2022 - criminal justice measures: consultation

Chapter 3 – National Jurisdiction for Callings from Custody etc.

Legislative reference: Part 4 of the Schedule of the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Act 2022

We propose to make permanent provisions to enable all sheriffs to hear custody cases no matter where the accused is being held, no matter where the sheriff normally has jurisdiction, and no matter where the alleged offence took place.

Normally in criminal proceedings, cases are dealt with on the basis of where offences are committed. This would be within the sheriffdom where the offence was committed, usually also in the sheriff court district where it was committed, and that would include first appearances. A sheriffdom is a geographical area governed by a sheriff principal for the purposes of splitting Scotland into six areas for processing of cases. Sheriffdoms are further broken down into sheriff court districts.

The measure was originally legislated for in the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020, and retained on a temporary basis through the Coronavirus (Extension and Expiry) (Scotland) Act 2021 and the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Act 2022. It extends a sheriff's jurisdiction throughout Scotland to deal with first appearances from police custody and enables the court before which such a first appearance occurs to hear any continuation of a case up until a not guilty plea is tendered, if that occurs (or until the stage of proceedings known as full committal in more serious cases, known as solemn proceedings). In so doing, the measure allows the national court to deal with guilty pleas and move them out of the court system minimising the number of cases that have to be transferred to local court.

Maintaining a national jurisdiction for custody cases as a feature of our criminal justice system would enable a flexible response in the management of custody business in response to public health threats, either present or emerging.

Justice partners including SCTS and Police Scotland have expressed clear support for permanency due to the continued flexibility and efficiency in the programming and management of custody court business which is provided for through a national jurisdiction for callings from custody.

They have also recognised that, maintaining the provisions would enable an effective operational response to transport disruption, severe weather, large public events or other unexpected situations that restrict either the capacity to move an accused person or to use court facilities within a particular area. In the absence of such, the law would revert to the pre pandemic position that criminal proceedings before a sheriff court must take place in a court in the sheriff court district where the offence was allegedly committed. Though there are existing powers to transfer cases between sheriffdoms, this requires a judicial order for each individual case, making it extremely onerous and not suitable in light of custody timescales, where cases have to be brought to court quickly.

As has been noted by Police Scotland, this measure supports the move to modernise our court procedures and processes and the increased use of technology. In particular, a national jurisdiction for custody cases would enable the increased use of virtual custody courts by allowing accused persons to attend any sheriff court in Scotland remotely by electronic means from the local police station they are being held in, and have their case dealt with by any sheriff across the country. This may minimise the length of time a person is held in custody prior to their first court appearance and enable the swift and efficient processing of custody cases.

Question 4

It is proposed that the provisions for Chapter 3 (National Jurisdiction for Callings from Custody etc.) will be made permanent. Which of the following best describes your view?

I think the provisions for Chapter 3 should be made permanent.

I think the provisions for Chapter 3 should be made permanent, with exceptions.

I do not think the provisions for Chapter 3 should be made permanent.

Unsure.

I have no view.

If you have any comments on the proposal for permanency of this provision, please provide below.