REPORT OF THE SUMMARY JUSTICE REVIEW COMMITTEE: SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE WRITTEN CONSULTATION - FINAL REPORT
CHAPTER THIRTEEN CONCLUSIONS
13.1 Although there was widespread welcome for the fact that the Scottish Executive had identified that the summary justice system required reform, it is clear from this consultation exercise that there was a great deal of opposition to the contentious proposal to abolish lay justice. Views on the proposal to unify summary courts were more favourable, with over two-thirds of those responding supportive, subject to a number of qualifications in some cases. A number of respondents believed that improvements - in order to reduce inefficiencies and delays and create more consistency in sentencing - could be achieved without making such fundamental changes to the system.
13.2 Several proposals were opposed by the majority of those who commented on them. These included: increasing the scope of fixed penalty notices to cover certain public order offences; offering fiscal fines to repeat offenders, particularly for similar offences; the proposed 'opt-out' approach to enforcement of fiscal fines and fixed penalties; and extending the use of trial in absence.
13.3 It must be noted, however, that over 50% of written responses received were from Justices of the Peace and Justice of the Peace Committees. The quantitative level of response from this sector resulted in many proposals being more strongly opposed, with a number of strongly worded and detailed responses received from these groups.
13.4 In relation to a number of the issues raised by respondents, with regard to the recommendations set out in the Report, three similar arguments were made repeatedly:
- Firstly, the Committee had admitted that it did not find a system in crisis, and that there were few voices demanding revolutionary change, but the Report still recommended the abolition of lay justice and unification of the summary courts;
- Secondly, that the Report relied too heavily on anecdotal and qualitative evidence for many of its recommendations; and
- Thirdly, that some of the key proposals relating to the costs of the judiciary had been based on data from a costing exercise that had now been discredited.
13.5 These arguments reflected a general concern that some of the key recommendations needed to be reconsidered, with more quantitative research and detailed financial assessments conducted and taken into account.