Kearney v HM Advocate

May 2, 2009 | No Comments

 

The Privy Council distinguishing Starrs v Ruxton  and affirming the decision of the High Court of Justiciary held that unlike temporary sheriffs temporary judges appointed to the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary had the requisite independence from the Executive to be Article 6(1) compliant.  

The Lord President was the one who instigated the making of a temporary appointment and suggested the names of suitable appointees. The process of appointment was not initiated by the Lord Advocate.   Further temporary judges enjoyed security of tenure throughout the period of their appointment and that, together with the fact that issues as to the work that he was to be employed to do and as to his reappointment at the expiry of the period were in the hands not of the Lord Advocate but of the Lord President, provided the guarantees that were needed to meet the requirements of independence and impartiality under Article 6.

Art. 06 Right to a Fair Trial, Civil Procedure, Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure

Leave a reply

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Disclaimer

Full copyright remains with the original author of each article. Please contact our contributing editors for source information.

Browse by

Cross Reference

Search Type

Search

SHRLG Archives

Formed in May 2009, the Scottish Human Rights Law Group is a non-affiliated, independent, professional network for those engaged in legal practice and study, in academia and politics, in campaigning and in the provision of advice. It exists to raise awareness and knowledge of human rights law in Scotland, and to provide a forum for discussion of matters of interest across the field. The group organises seminars and roundtable discussions on human rights and is accredited for the purposes of CPD.