The point is that, except in very limited circumstances, the SC cannot hear appeals regarding Scottish criminal law. It can only do so regarding devolution and ECHR matters.
The SC is not the final criminal court in the UK for Scottish criminal justice cases. The Appeal Court in Edinburgh is. The SC has very limited powers over devolution and ECHR issues.
No, that’s not the point. You claimed that the statement that the Supreme Court is the highest court in the UK was false, and you have refused to back that statement up. Whilst doing so, you falsely accused me of not knowing how the Scottish criminal law system works, and also falsely accused me of claiming that the SC is a criminal appeal court in Scotland. It is not, it works at the next level up in Scotland, and decides whether laws are legal or not.
My claim, that you have yet to refute, is that there is no court in the UK to which Supreme Court judgements can be appealed. Please stop pretending to argue about things everybody agrees with and respond to this.
That’s not the question I asked. What court, if any, is higher than the SC?
The OP
"I maintain that the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal for Scottish Civil and Administrative Law, but that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over Criminal trials- and that one cannot appeal to the Supreme Court on a matter of verdict or sentence from the Court system in Scotland.
The Supreme Court only trumps Scottish Law over Administrative and Civil matters. Otherwise the High Court of the Justiciary is the final criminal appeal court in Scotland and the Supreme Court in London cannot hear purely criminal appeals."
The ECHR up to a point, but the SC is not above the Scottish Courts in Scottish Criminal law where it has no remit.
So, the SC is the highest court in the UK, if only the ECHR is above it. As I said from the start, and you falsely said I was wrong about.
There is an advantage of actually living in the jurisdiction and knowing what is taught in schools and appears in the media bout the Scottish system. The news NEVER has coverage of criminal cases being considered by the Supreme Court.
[/QUOTE]
Rather than (a) an ad hominen attack; and (b) an appeal to the media as a superior legal authority than a barrister trained and called in the UK; do you have any basis for saying that there is no such thing as British law?
Please do not distort my words.
You said:
“Do you have any basis for saying that there is no such thing as British law?”
What I actually said was:
“I would point out that the very concept of British Law is an oddity.”
Which is very different. French law and most other continental systems are comprehensive, codified and general. That is not the case in Britain where there are multiple overlapping layers of civil, criminal and constitutional law in a typical mush mash without clear order. Scottish law and British law have different historic backgrounds. In Britain, civil law has coalesced into one system with a single common route of appeal. That is not the case with the criminal law where, except in the very limited area defined in the past few decades, criminal systems have two different appeal routes that neither overlap nor control one another.
Earlier in the debate I have referred to Scottish law, English law and British law. The relationship is not well ordered.
It is an oddity. I did not say that it does not exist.
In discussion on another site it is suggested that I make this statement of difference.
When the Supreme Court makes a decision as the final court of appeal in the English criminal law system as the historic final appeal function inherited from the House of Lords, it makes and effectively changes the Criminal law of England. It has the power to directly overturn the findings of lower courts in England.
When the Supreme Court makes a decision in an administrative capacity on the Criminal Law system in Scotland, inherited from the Privy Council, it provides a commentary on the application of criminal law in Scotland but does not in itself make or change Scottish Criminal law. It does not have the power to overturn the findings of Scottish Criminal Courts.
That is why the website of the SC states clearly that it is not the final Criminal Court of appeal for Scotland and also explains why there are no records of any case where Scottish judgements have been overturned by the Supreme Court.
The relationship of the SC to each individual criminal jurisdiction is totally different in law and application.
I would point out that the barrister concerned is not (AFAIK) called to the bar in the jurisdiction concerned.
Canadian law is derived from English law, but Scottish law is not. Scottish law (and especially Scottish Criminal law) is massively different from English common and statute law. Court procedures, laws of evidence, jury composition and majority votes, corroboration, different special defences and an eight hundred year history which at no point melds with the English system. Until the 1990s the House of Lords which had acted as the final court of appeal for criminal matters in England had no place at all in the Scottish Criminal justice system. The SC inherited some very limited powers from the Privy Council when it took over as the Supreme Court for the UK, but it still has no general powers to make direct and judicially enforcible decisions about Scottish criminal cases.
That is why its website states that precisely.:
"“The Supreme Court acts as the highest court for civil appeals from the Court of Session in Scotland. The highest court for criminal appeals however remains as the Court of Appeal in Scotland.”
No true Scotsman would accept that the Supreme Court was the final court of Criminal appeal for Scotland.
and another cite:
The High Court of Justiciary
Serious cases, such as murder, are dealt with by the High Court, heard by a judge and jury.
Examples of cases which the High Court can deal with are:-
•murder
•rape
•incest
•treason
•large scale fraud.
If you are not satisfied with the decision of the sheriff court in criminal cases you may be able to appeal to the High Court. This is the final court of appeal for all criminal cases
Still no-one has claimed otherwise.
I see you’re still avoiding the question of which court is higher than the Supreme court, though.
No court is higher than the SC. The ECHR cannot overturn SC decisions, only pass comment on the manner in which they respect or do not respect the European Convention. The SC can accept or ignore such judgements. Similarly if laws are found to be contrary to the convention, the decision cannot be enforced without parliamentary action. In practice the Supreme Court accepts all such decisions as a matter of protocol out of respect for the rule of law.
The relationship between the HCJ and the SC IS almost identical with the SC and the ECHR- it can pass comment on the legality of Scottish Criminal law, but cannot change verdicts or change the law concerned.
There is no general criminal appeal from the HCJ to the SC in the same way there is no general appeal from the HCJ to the SC.
I am not sure what point you are seeking to argue.
Let me help you clarify your argument.
Please indicate exactly what part of the OP you disagree:
"I maintain that the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal for Scottish Civil and Administrative Law, but that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over Criminal trials- and that one cannot appeal to the Supreme Court on a matter of verdict or sentence from the Court system in Scotland.
The Supreme Court only trumps Scottish Law over Administrative and Civil matters. Otherwise the High Court of the Justiciary is the final criminal appeal court in Scotland and the Supreme Court in London cannot hear purely criminal appeals."
What I disagree with is your claim, in the previous thread that we were instructed to drop, that the Supreme Court is not the highest court in the UK, and your claim in the OP that I claimed that there was a direct process of appeal in Scotland to the SC.
The “argument” about the nature of Scottish criminal justice is entirely in your own head. No-one has disagreed with your claims in the OP, but they are irrelevant to the discussion that prompted this thread.
Please cite where I am supposed to have claimed that the SC was not the highest court in the UK. It is the highest court for civil and administrative matters but not for decisions under the Scottish Criminal law. It is not possible to argue a criminal case originating in Scotland at the SC except in those very few instances when devolution and other administrative concerns are the cause of the appeal.
Do you accept that?
Er, that was the whole point of this thread. You posted a massive great list of “mistakes” about British and Scottish things, one of which was the claim that the Supreme Court was the UK’s highest criminal court. You claimed, falsely, that I was wrong to say that it was, in fact, the UK’s highest court. Nothing you’ve provided yet shows that there’s a higher court than the SC.
Please produce the exact wording I used. This is called a cite.
The SC is the highest court for criminal peals in England but not in Scotland where it is the appeal court in the HCJ. The SC never hears Scottish criminal appeals. It does hear claims that the administration of justice in Scotland is contravening devolution law. It does not hear criminal cases as criminal cases, only whether the law is administratively sound.
In the same way that the ECHR is not higher than the SC, in Scottish criminal matters the SC is not higher than the HCJ.
Please do not forget the cite requested.