Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 30th August 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Figures reveal court reforms for speedier justice are falling short



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

NEW court reforms intended to bring about speedier and more effective justice are not being used as much as had been expected, a senior lawyer said yesterday.
Statistics on the impact of new summary justice legislation were made public by Frank Mulholland, Solicitor General for Scotland.

However he said "uninformed criticism and comment" by some lawyers and MSPs risked damaging public confidence. Legislation passed last year was meant to make the justice system speedier by extending the use of "direct measures" like fiscal fines, or making compensation payments.

Mr Mulholland dismissed claims that summary court prosecutions had been reduced by up to 75 per cent and insisted since the reforms were introduced there had been a fall in prosecutions of 13 per cent.



The full article contains 133 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 11 July 2008 12:47 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Legal Issues
 
1

2Right,

On Location 11/07/2008 02:30:43
And what about the Disclosure of police evidence and statements still being withheld from defence teams Mr Mulholland.

The simple facts of the matter Mr Mulholland are simply you are afraid public confidence will be destroyed by the criticisms from MSPs who ask Awkward, Inconvenient and Embarrassing questions which show crown office go back on their word to Parliament.

Example:

Teachers
S3W-13233 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Tuesday, May 20, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made in implementing recommendations 29 and 30 of The ACPOS and Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service working group formed to develop joint protocols, as recommended in the Bonomy Report.

Answered by Frank Mulholland QC (Wednesday, May 28, 2008): Both recommendations relate to the disclosure of evidence in criminal proceedings by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) and the Scottish police.

Recommendation 29 suggested that the police and COPFS should commit to a process of full disclosure in all solemn cases in connection with the implementation of High Court Reform in 2005.

Recommendation 30 suggested that COPFS should consider a pilot for routine disclosure of a summary of the Crown case in summary cases.

I am pleased to confirm that both recommendations have been implemented in full, Recommendation 29 was implemented in November 2004 when the then Lord Advocate Lord Boyd issued a Crown Practice Statement in relation to the disclosure of evidence by the Crown in High Court Cases.

The Crown Practice Statement took full effect from 1 January 2005 and continues to apply to all High Court cases indicted on or after 1 April 2005 and was extended to all solemn cases from 1 September 2005.

In relation to Recommendation 30, a successful pilot was conducted in Dumfries and Galloway in 2007 and the new process was rolled out nationally in September 2007 to support the Summary Justice Reform programme. All summary co
2

2Right,

On Location 11/07/2008 02:38:22
So why Mr Mulholland are people still having to go to court for access to evidence the Crown Hold in their cases Like Brendan Dixon awaiting a date for Privy Council to decide his case ?

Why is tax payers money being wasted on legal aid when Crown Clearly have a duty to disclose all material evidence.

Hear Elish Claim disclosure of all evidence will be revealed to the defence.

What a joke disclosure is Mr Mulholland

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x11rHMJskY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqsMu0G-1rY

3

,

11/07/2008 04:55:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

weeshooie1,

Wollongong 11/07/2008 05:33:02
Talking about the courts, this might speed things up.

By Cal Thomas Tribune Media Services

The Tampa Tribune
Published: July 9, 2008

So this is how it ends: not with a bang, but a whimper.
The most senior judge in England has declared that Islamic legal principles in Sharia law may be used within Muslim communities in Britain to settle marital arguments and regulate finance. Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said, "Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."
In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips said Muslims in Britain could use Islamic legal principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - comply with English law. Sharia law does not comply with English law. It is a law unto itself.
And so the English who gave us the Magna Carta in 1215, William Blackstone and the foundation of American law are slowly succumbing to the dictates of intolerant Islam and sowing seeds of their own destruction.
The Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organization (IKWRO), an umbrella group of activists who work in Muslim countries to liberate women from the dark side of this oppressive force, according to Womensphere.wordpress.com, identifies Sharia family law as the fundamental basis for discrimination against women in the Muslim world, including communities in the United Kingdom.
Here are just some of the "benefits" British Muslim women can look forward to if Sharia law replaces English law: The Muslim woman cannot marry without parental approval; marriages can be conducted without the presence of a bride, as long as the guardian consents, creating a climate for underage and early marriage; Muslim women may only marry Muslim men.
It gets worse. A Muslim man can divorce his wife by repudiating her; they have no obligation to support a former wife or her children after the divorce; women are prohibited from divorcing husbands without his consent; abuse is not
5

weeshooie1,

Wollongong 11/07/2008 05:37:51
(continued from above)

It gets worse. A Muslim man can divorce his wife by repudiating her; they have no obligation to support a former wife or her children after the divorce; women are prohibited from divorcing husbands without his consent; abuse is not grounds for a woman to end a marriage; in matters of inheritance, sons are entitled to twice as much of an estate as daughters.
Divorced women must remain single. If they remarry they can lose custody of their children. There is no similar requirement for a man. Child custody often reverts to the father at a preset age, even if the father has been abusive.
It is impossible to reconcile this antiquated "law" with English law, so what could Lord Phillips mean when he says that Sharia law can be used in Muslim communities as long as such laws comply with English law? This will mean English law must become subordinate to Sharia law. This is Dhimmitude, an Islamic system of religious apartheid begun in the 7th century that forces all other religions and cultures to accept an inferior status once Muslims become the majority.
Lord Phillips has signed the death warrant for his nation if his opinion becomes the law of England. It's one thing to fight a war and lose it. It's quite another to willingly surrender without a struggle


Cal Thomas' column is distributed by Tribune Media Services.

Comments please.


6

Turkey Jerky,

11/07/2008 14:34:12
Cal,

I don't know if you are really that stupid or are just trying to flame people here.

It is obvious to anyone with an Iota of intelligence that it is British Law (not english law, you jerk) that would supercede sharia law if it was accepted into the books.

I should also point out that the Jewish community has had there own courts under the same terms that you have outlined for OVER 100 years in this nation.

You are either a bigot, or mentally deficient or both.
7

Senga Jean,

11/07/2008 17:08:03
First there are two legal systems in Britain. One is the English and the other Scots. The Scots legal system once owed much to Roman/Dutch but has been slightly anglicised. It is also interesting how much Hebrew Law also remains in Scots Law (the reason?..the reformation perhaps) In Scots criminal law for example the principle of corroboration of evidence is pure Hebrew Law (I will not do a Dot Cotton but possibly Deutoronomy?) HOWEVER in 1760BC where Iraq stands now a famous lawmaker Hammurabi (the sixth King of Babylon)gave all legal systems a head start with his legal code. I am a convinced secularist but I will take advice from Auld Nick if it helps humanity. Incidentally I also support the SNP in east Glasgow. They deserve better.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.