Summary trial scheduling problems need to be addressed: appeal court

Significant problems exist in the scheduling of summary criminal trials which require to be addressed by those involved in the administration of the sheriff courts, the criminal appeal court has stated.

Refusing an appeal against the further adjournment of a drink driving case, the judges said there were "considerable pressures" on the summary criminal courts that required the procurator fiscal to "actively review [case] priorities in close consultation with the sheriff clerk".

The appeal was brought by William Christensen, charged with driving with excess alcohol, while his licence had been revoked, and with no insurance, and failing to disclose the driver's identity to police, all on 8 July 2013. He appeared at Paisley Sheriff Court the following day, pleaded not guilty and further diets were set for 27 August and 9 September. 

There followed, in the appeal court's words, "a litany of adjournments of intermediate and trial diets until 26 January 2015 when once more the sheriff adjourned the trial [on his own motion] due to lack of court time", for a further month. He refused the accused's motion that the complaint be deserted.

Certain early adjournments had taken place on defence motion, but on four occasions prior to January 2015 the trial had been adjourned due to lack of court time. A skilled witness for the defence had been on standby on each occasion, though he had not required to attend court.

Before the appeal court it was argued that the procedure and delay since July 2013 was incompatible with summary procedure. The Crown had erred in their approach to prioritisation and had called a complaint with a shorter procedural history on 26 January 2015. The sheriff had erred in failing to recognise the systemic failure by the court to schedule business properly, allowing the sheriff to adjourn another part-heard trial into an already busy trials court without ensuring that additional resources were provided.

Giving the opinion of the court, Temporary Judge Mhairi Stephen QC, who sat with Lord Brodie and Lady Clark of Calton, said: "The unfortunate procedural history of this case underlines the considerable pressures which exist in the summary criminal courts." However the decision whether to adjourn or postpone a trial diet was "very much one for the court of first instance to take, having regard to the circumstances of the particular case", and it was "much better placed to identify whether there had been, or are, what may be called systemic failures either on the part of the court or the prosecution such as a particular response is called for".

She continued: "In this case the sheriff had regard to the serious nature of the charges libelled and the significant public interest in having these charges properly determined. He was entitled to have regard to these matters. He identified that the only prejudice to the complainer mentioned in submission was the inconvenience caused by repeated appearances in court...

"We find this to be a very difficult case where those responsible for administering the courts have been unable to secure the progress of this case to trial within a proper timescale. However, the question for this court is whether the sheriff has exercised his discretion in a manner or reached a decision which no reasonable sheriff could have reached."

The judge said it was clear that the sheriff had addressed all of the material matters and had identified "no systemic failures" on the part of the Crown. Therefore the court, while concerned at the history of the case, "is unable to conclude that the sheriff reached a decision which he was not entitled to reach in the circumstances".

She concluded, however: "This case discloses significant problems in the scheduling of summary criminal trials which require to be addressed by those involved in the administration of the sheriff courts. It is also evident that the prioritisation of complaints calling for trial in the sheriff court is at the discretion of the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service and is primarily their responsibility. It appears to us that the procurator fiscal requires to actively review these priorities in close consultation with the sheriff clerk to ensure the cases which merit priority, such as those adjourned due to lack of court time or indeed for other substantial reasons, are identified and accorded that ranking at the trial diet which follows. It hardly needs saying that this case deserves the highest priority at the next trial diet."

Click here to view the opinion.