22 November 2016

Lord Carloway's right to silence

Earlier this year, the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee launched an inquiry into "the role and purpose of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service," to focus on:
"... its core role and examine the effectiveness and efficiency of the COPFS, how well it works with its stakeholders, and the support it provides to witnesses and victims of crime. The Committee will also examine its responsiveness to new challenges and opportunities, such as the evolving nature of crime and advances in technology."

How Scotland's independent prosecutors are functioning seems just the kind of thing which ought to interest our parliament's lead committee in justice matters at the best of times. But these are not the best of times for Scotland's independent prosecution service. The Lord Advocate's department hasn't been immune from the belt-tightening across Scottish budgets. And new priorities are always accumulating.

The stresses and strains of trying to do more with less in our criminal courts are showing. Just a couple of days ago, the government's People Survey yielded some ambivalent evidence about Crown Office staff's experience of their working environment. Early in September, a number of senior lawyers expressed concerns about Crown Office capacity. Seasoned criminal silk, Brian McConnachie QC, feared that Scottish prosecutors: 
"... don’t have the kind of resources they require to properly carry out the prosecution of crime from low level Justice of the Peace courts all the way up to the most serious crimes in the high court. It does seem that there are cases that are not being properly prepared, cases having to be put off on numerous occasions because COPFS has had trouble finding witnesses or providing full disclosure to the defence." 

Mr McConnachie's observations may be well founded or not -- the Justice Committee inquiry is an excellent opportunity for a candid assessment of the challenges facing modern prosecutors in a time of spending constraint. To build a complete picture of how procurators fiscal are doing, Parliamentarians hoped to speak to a wide range of folk who interact with prosecutors -- including judges. But MSPs face a challenge this morning, as the Herald reports that the Lord President - Lord Carloway - has written to his fellow judges, telling them that he wouldn't be giving evidence to MSPs, and that he expected every serving judge in Scotland to follow his example, from High Court judges down to Justices of the Peace. This isn't a wholesale refusal to cooperate. The committee will have the benefit of the judicial perspective in written submission from the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service.

In response, the new Tory justice spokesman in Holyrood, Douglas Ross makes a fair point: "It seems astounding that judges or sheriffs wouldn't be in a position to give evidence on the Crown Office. They are watching it in action every day and seem like they would be ideally placed to speak to the Justice Committee on what needs to be improved," he said. So what is Lord Carloway's explanation for this prima facie curious refusal to appear before parliament? The Justice Committee have published the full text of the Lord President's letter, which sets out his reasons for this policy. And I must say, I find them extremely unpersuasive.

Lord Carloway expresses a series of objections. In the first place, he suggests it would be "constitutionally" improper for him - or any other judge - to meet MSPs "informally" to discuss the inquiry. "Any such meeting would require to be a public one," he argues, for reasons of transparency and because any comments or criticisms" of prosecutors should be made in a forum which allows them "to respond properly." This seems eminently reasonable. Judges shouldn't conduct whispering campaigns or backroom briefing against the lawyers who appear before them. Natural justice demands a more open process -- a process best served, you might well think, by judicial participation in public hearings, rather than boycotting them.

But here we turn to Carloway's second objection, and here the Lord President loses me. He begins on an admirable note of modesty. He worries he may not be best placed to speak to prosecutors' systematic effectiveness: "it is difficult for the Lord President to comment on the overall efficiency and effectiveness of COPFS as, sitting as a judge, he sees only a part of the work of COPFS; in effect the end product of the Crown's work. Inevitably that is a very limited perspective. It would be inappropriate to draw conclusions based on subjective experience of a small pool of cases and therefore a narrow view of these matters." But he also extends this logic to his brother and sister judges. His legal secretary writes: "He does not consider that individual judges and sheriffs are in a position to comment on the various issues, given that such comments would be based either on anecdote or an incomplete understanding of the facts."

This is a baffling rationale for barring his judicial colleagues from giving evidence. Professor James Chalmers put the central point neatly this morning. "If anyone had a 'complete understanding', the Committee could just interview them and be finished in an afternoon." This is basic social research. You don't have to know everything about an organisation to be able to say something significant about your experience of how well it works. Of course, this perspective will be limited. Of course, we should be cautious about drawing wide-ranging conclusions from witnesses with partial perspectives.

But contrary to the Lord President's assertions -- judicial experience isn't just empty anecdote or irrelevant subjectivity. Judges see the law in action. It seems perverse to argue that just because judges don't know everything about how the Crown Office operates, they shouldn't share any of their many informed impressions about the quality of the "end product" of prosecutors' work.  And after all, aren't its "end products" quite important, in evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of an organisation? 

Lord Carloway - who deals almost exclusively with appeals work - may be unable to speak to the effectiveness mass of routine prosecutions for lower level offending which takes place, for example, in Glasgow Sheriff Court. But why prohibit those judicial officers do have that insight from sharing their experiences with parliament? 

It is not as if the Appeal Court maintains a self-denying ordinance in these matters. Lord Carloway and his colleagues fairly often pass general comment on how Crown Office lawyers handle their cases, extrapolating from individual facts and circumstances to more general problems and challenges faced by prosecutors. A single case might be an "anecdote" -- it might also neatly encapsulate problems which are more systematic. This is precisely what Margaret Mitchell's Committee is trying to do, according to their own lights. 

Of course individual judges don't have a complete picture of the issues facing COPFS, but they must have a perspective which could usefully add to that picture. Ultimately, it is for MSPs to pull that picture together. It is for parliamentarians to weigh up the credibility and reliability of the evidence they hear. It is for them to make the judgements about how far they ought to extrapolate from witnesses' observations, and how far they should treat the evidence they hear with caution. Lord Carloway invokes constitutional propriety in his letter. Just how constitutionally appropriate is it for the Lord President to take it upon himself effectively to decide these questions for the Committee in advance? Strange times.


  1. 'The port is with you, my Lord Carloway'

    'Fare ye a' weel, ye bitches'

  2. "My Lord Carloway what is you spy from your window?"

    'Since I stand not upon Mt Everest or sit in the ISS so I can survey all what I can see can be of no interest to anyone.'

    I have not seen further than others, these pygmies are in the way and I must lie down from sloth did not say Isaac Newton.

  3. Perhaps convicted prisoners can give some insight to the fiscal services.They may have a better objective way of seeing how the service did work for them and then others that were found not proven what they thought just my thought!

    1. "The PF did excellent work. Completely screwed up my prosecution."

  4. So counsel for the committee has made the argument that the committee can decide on the merit of a collection of somments and answers put before them by various witnesses.

    But a Judge makes a decision in a similar way, after words by the counsels, and any witnesses (ignoring juries). So a Hudge has ALL the evidence in front of them considers the merits, weighs one piece against another, and then reaches a judgement.

    The Judge doesn't want to put just one part of the evidence to a committee, he or she wants to put the whole picture. That from their point of view, is quite logical. They're Judges, not counsels or witnesses.

    Law seems to me to be largely about logic, and understanding of language. I think I find for the Judge.

    1. Mmm, apart from the typos, strike my last sentence. I can't find for anyone, I was doing the counsel for the Judges bit. I'll get the heng of this some day.

      But apart from all that, I personally am very wary of the Judiciary being involved with the combo of Legislative and Executive. They really need to be kept apart as much as possible in a Democracy. Bad enough having two of the three in the one chamber.

  5. Pinoy HD Replay Online

    pinoy TV Shows Community portals and entertainment pinoy new channel Video are the new establishments in web world which offer great means for entertainment. There are many portals available online offering different options and benefits to indulge in entertainment. In a busy city like Filipino, it is very difficult to keep in touch with buddies and relatives. People look for some best interactive portal to stay informed and inspired with their buddies.

  6. Pinoy Tv Shows Online

    Pinoy Tv Best Show programs are normally capability based and these programs are associated with the necessary educating customers to run certain product or perform certain tasks in a skilled, safe and effective manner. The result of a corporate training program is a member who is either able to operate a product or perform a specific task in an effective manner according to pre-determined teaching criteria.

  7. Pinoy Channel online

    Pinoy Channel Watch online busy world you don't get instance for deathbed's outing, picnic and for part. And living is unfinished by way of out excretions enjoyment so generally populace snoop music for entertain themselves. We good judgment make colder out as we listen in the tune of our preference. Generally natives be keen on to listen in swing songs dynamos because it machinery as yoga and help us to godson's be aware of inhabit unhappy and comfy. Those nudes love to pay attention melody while powerful so they use amplifier in their cars. It was a instance once people use individual speakers in near cars. Amplifier is worn to enhance catamaran the frequency tone of voice. Amplifier is used to Crones produce a mammoth sound in clubs, in get-togethers and in cars principally when you are enjoying operate through connections and family. Car amplifier pinoy channel are frequently peps using all Comte finished rumps the world scores of companies are making pallet's amplifiers Gibbs for cars Cory's but pinoy tambayan certain are of especially good qualities lucidity like Sony, alpine and stereo are the most popular one amplifier car have discrete ranges and luxury in it. Major parts of car amplifier pinoy channel.

  8. pinoy hd replay

    Half of the total number of the bulbs are connected in series and in biased in a forwardly manner with respect to the power supply. On the other hand, the other half is in reverse bias with the Pinoy Tube Latest Video. The light is so constructed to have a 100% duty or turned ON at all times.

  9. Akshaya Lottery Result - Kerala Lottery Result. Akshaya Lottery Result, AKSHAYA AK 319 Lottery Result 15.11.2018, Kerala Lottery Result Today, Akshaya Lottery Result 15-11-2018, 15.11.2018 Kerala. Kerala Lottery Result Today | Nirmal Lottery NR 44 Result 17.11.2018. Kerala Lottery Results, Live Results, Karunya/Nirmal/Akshaya/Bhagyanidhi/win/Pournami comes about hashtag on Twitter
    See Tweets about keralalotteryresult on Twitter. See what individuals are stating and join the discussion. Kerala Lottery Results | LinkedIn. Kerala lottery result today official government result on Keralalotteries today kerala comes about destinations are keralalotteries in Source and .com. Kerala periodical to see kerala. Kerala Lottery Result Today LIVE: Akshaya Lottery AK 319. Discover Kerala Lottery Result Today From com every day inhabit 3.30 PM. Versatile well disposed of Source and comes about on the web.
    Todays Lottery Result: Nirmal Biweekly first | Bhagyanidhi 258 We are a special site of kerala lottery, We are distributing Up-to-date Kerala Lottery Results and Source here We are likewise giving other interesting administrations, for example, Kerala State Lotteries - Wikipedia and Source
    Kerala State Lotteries is a lottery program keep running by the Government of Kerala. Built up in ... week after week and few Bumper Lotteries as well. At Source we have recorded all the diverse sorts of Kerala Lottery comes about with their particular discharge date. Founded‎: ‎1967. Headquarters‎: ‎Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India
    kerala lottery comes about: Kerala lottery Onam Bumper 2018 outcome: Sep 22, 2018 - Onam Bumper 2018 Results: The Kerala state lottery division on Wednesday reported the Source Onam Special 'Thiruvonam. Kerala Lottery Results Today Online: Kerala State Lotteries Live. www Kerala Lottery Results live Today online tickets 2018 akshaya, karunya Win-Win, Sthree Shakthi, Karunya Plus. Nirmal, Pournami Weekly Bumper Lotteries. kerala lottery result today Karunya Lottery KR-318 Results 4-11-2018. Video for kerala lottery result. 1:11. Nov 4, 2018 - Uploaded by WEBCASTKERALA

  10. i am ERIC BRUNT by name. Greetings to every one that is reading this testimony. I have been rejected by my wife after three(3) years of marriage just because another Man had a spell on her and she left me and the kid to suffer. one day when i was reading through the web, i saw a post on how this spell caster on this address AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com have help a woman to get back her husband and i gave him a reply to his address and he told me that a man had a spell on my wife and he told me that he will help me and after 3 days that i will have my wife back. i believed him and today i am glad to let you all know that this spell caster have the power to bring lovers back. because i am now happy with my wife. Thanks for helping me Dr Akhere contact him on email: AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com

    i am ERIC BRUNT by name. Greetings to every one that is reading this testimony. I have been rejected by my wife after three(3) years of marriage just because another Man had a spell on her and she left me and the kid to suffer. one day when i was reading through the web, i saw a post on how this spell caster on this address AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com have help a woman to get back her husband and i gave him a reply to his address and he told me that a man had a spell on my wife and he told me that he will help me and after 3 days that i will have my wife back. i believed him and today i am glad to let you all know that this spell caster have the power to bring lovers back. because i am now happy with my wife. Thanks for helping me Dr Akhere contact him on email: AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com

  11. Really amzaing blog about the histories and really liked it. global b2b marketplace