Trial deadline scrapped in reform of High Court 'shambles'; Wide-

A radical overhaul of Scotland's "shambolic" High Court will erase the 110-day trial deadline in order to avoid the accused in serious crimes escaping justice because time has run out.

Major reforms to be set out this week will also put pressure on judges and lawyers to stick to firm start dates for trials, replacing a system widely seen as being in chaos, and is compared by the justice minister with airline's deliberate over-booking.

The overhaul, which has been drawn up by a committee led by High Court judge Lord Bonomy, is a crucial part of a sweeping reform of Scottish justice which will also see: change for cases heard in district and sheriff courts; a new stress on victims' rights; legal aid and police complaints reforms; a fundamental review of the procurator fiscal service; and a law being drawn up to protect vulnerable witnesses such as children.

The High Court - where the most serious crimes such as murder, rape and drugs dealing are prosecuted - is the part of a creaking Scottish justice system most in crisis. Sitting in Scotland's major towns and cities, it has seen a surge in increasingly complex cases over the past seven years, many of them being repeatedly postponed as the court administration struggles to handle the pressure of work.

The Bonomy review has found the number of charges for High Court offences rose by 23% between 1995 and 2001, and the number of times cases were called and recalled rose by 59%.

This is because cases kept being adjourned, particularly as defence lawyers ask for more time to prepare their cases. They do this both due to the cases being complex - many involving drugs offences and forensic evidence - and because prosecution evidence is given to the defence team at a late stage. In 1995-96, the number of High Court cases which had no adjournments was 94%, but by last year, that had fallen to 67%.

Figures recently released by the Crown Office found the number of "remaining cases" which are left in limbo rose from 141 four years ago to 412 last year.

The Bonomy report was also a response to the Chokkar case, in which a trial for racially motivated murder fell apart, and led to severe criticisms of the justice system failing at several points.

According to Bonomy, who has described the current state of the High Court as "a shambles", the effect on victims, witnesses and the accused is a system which keeps building them up to face difficult and traumatic court hearings, only to find delays and postponements and a recall for another day. It is also very wasteful of court and police time.

Bonomy is understood to recommend a change to the 110-day rule, which for 122 years has been a keystone of Scottish justice, ensuring that accused people could not be kept in jail too long awaiting trial. Because it is the defence lawyers who most often ask for extensions beyond that time, the rule is expected to be relaxed, while there will still be measures to ensure people are not on remand for too long.

The report is also expected to contain criticism of both prosecution and defence teams for delaying court proceedings with legal disputes that could have been heard long before.

Jim Wallace, the justice minister, believes the 110-day rule is not one to "get hung up about", though he is keen that the 80-day time limit for the procurator-fiscal to serve the accused with an indictment should be maintained and become the key deadline to ensure progress of High Court cases.

He is understood to favour an end to a rule which can allow an accused person to walk free, with the case falling, if a deadline is missed. It is expected that in future, the accused would have a right to be bailed and released from remand after a long trial delay. The trial would not be abandoned, but would still have to go ahead within 12 months.

The justice minister told the Sunday Herald he wants to see the High Court be more considerate to members of the public involved in cases, even down to its frequent failure to start at 10am each morning.

"More often than not, the public witnesses, jurors, police giving evidence, don't have a clue when a trial is going to go ahead," he said. "There's a tension to building yourself up for a case which is going to be difficult, only to find it doesn't go on that day, so you have to psyche yourself up again at a later date."

Wallace said: "People involved in cases, in particular victims, have to know what date the trial is due to go ahead. It should be a rule rather than the exception that it goes ahead on that date. The system is a bit like airline overbooking, where they know full well that some passengers aren't going to turn up, so it's in their interests to overbook. Courts are overbooking too, and that compounds the situation."

Wallace said: "There's a role for lawyers and the judiciary in trying to secure a more smooth-running, well-functioning system. It shouldn't be left to the last minute to identify what information might be needed."

Copyright 2002 SMG Sunday Newspapers Ltd.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.