JD wrote:
News is filtering through that the court case today was a bit of a fiasco. CEC have said if they lose they will try and take the case to the House of Lords. Vincent's Case is going back to the Sheriff Principal, which could be another five-month.
All in all not very satisfactory.
Regards
JD
Email to the Regulatory Committee councillors
From: "Jim Taylor" <jasbar@btinternet.com>
To: "Alastair Paisley" <alastair.paisley@edinburgh.gov.uk>; "David Walker" <david.j.walker@edinburgh.gov.uk>; "elizabeth maginnis" <elizabeth.maginnis@edinburgh.gov.uk>; "Lawrence Marshall" <lawrence.marshall@edinburgh.gov.uk>; "Liz O'Malley" <liz.o'malley@edinburgh.gov.uk>; "Lorna Shiels" <lorna.shiels@edinburgh.gov.uk>; "Michael Dixon" <michael.dixon@edinburgh.gov.uk>; "Shami Khan" <shami.khan@edinburgh.gov.uk>; "Chris Wigglesworth" <chris.wigglesworth@edinburgh.gov.uk>
Cc: "Donald Anderson" <donald.anderson@edinburgh.gov.uk>; "Ewan Aitken" <ewan.aitken@edinburgh.gov.uk>
Subject: Court of Session appeals - Day 1
Date: 07 March 2007 05:21
Councillors
Day one of the Council's appeals against the Sheriffs decision in the cases of Salteri et al.
Reports back point to the council encountering some difficulty. Although operating in extremely difficult circumstances, with a tenuous case, QC Armstrong is struggling valiantly to defend the council's position. He is to be commended.
However, during over five and a half hours of questioning from the appeal judges, with much nervous wig pulling his only distraction from the onslaught, the situation does not look good for the council.
However, it is not over yet. Tomorrow it is understood the Lords will decide whether the council's appeal is competent.
Should it indeed be declared competent, then the decision of the judges will apply. Given the strength of the case, odds are the licences will be granted by the court.
Should it be deemed incompetent, the fall back position is Sheriff Bowen's confirmation of the decisions of Sheriffs Liddle and Horsburgh, which was to grant the licences.
This would appear to place the council in some difficulty. It has been mooted that in such circumstances the council may appeal directly to the House of Lords.
Councillors may be interested to know that since the 1707 Act of Union, like a "West Lothian question" in reverse, "there is no rule that Scottish Law Lords in the House of Lords (and conventionally there usually are only two in any appellate Committee) must be present to hear a Scottish appeal, let alone that a majority or all of those sitting should be Scottish Law Lords.
Therefore Scottish appeals might be (and have been) decided by judges that have no training in, or experience of, Scots law.
The House of Lords has been responsible for forcing extraneous English laws into Scots law with no regard for the fundamental differences between the two systems nor for the Act of Union which made clear safeguard against this situation.
Appeals unto the House of Lords from the Court of Session exist only de facto with no legal basis and consequently should be annulled." *
* source
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/session/index.asp
Councillors must be proud of the council's stoic and determined attempt to maintain its policy of restricting licences. But, shouldn't we all wonder how much this is all costing? And, for what real purpose? And, taken to the ultimate appeal, how much bigger will the humiliation be?
* source
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/session/index.asp