🧵 As enhanced media attention is trained on the Scots aspects of the Post Office scandal - here's a significant detail which emerged from Sir Wyn Williams' inquiry which raises significant questions for the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service. Post Office head of criminal law Jarnail Singh testified in November about his role in the scandal. Counsel to the Inquiry took Singh to an email he sent in March 2014 about the main "matters" PO lawyers were then contending with. Full transcript here: postofficeinquiry.dracos.co.uk/phase-4/2023-1…

Considering there's never been a section 35 order made under the Scotland Act before & one has never been judicially reviewed, you'd think folk with no legal qualifications might be a tad more circumspect about predicting outcomes of a process with three layers of appeal. Pick one of the two potential outcomes right now: you might well be right. But this is essentially an accident of chance - or projection about preferred outcomes - polished up as prescience. Folk declaring with absolute certainty what will happen are talking out of their hats.

🧵A wee thread on reforming reporting restrictions in criminal cases involving children - whether as victims, witnesses or the accused. Holyrood's @SP_ECYP committee is now scrutinising proposals update the law in this area. This is a good thing. But... parliament.scot/-/media/files/… Me & @seonaid90 have been doing a lot of work recently @Campaign4CA on good & bad ways to introduce reporting restrictions, drawing on international experience. We submitted evidence on the Bill as we think there are at least six ways these proposals can be improved in committee.

There's a whole pile of confusion out there at the moment (understandably) about Holyrood's legislative competence, the concept of "reserved matters," and how this relates to the hitherto ignored provisions in s.35 of the Scotland Act 1998. A short 🧵legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/… Start with the basics. The Scotland Act says "there shall be a Scottish Parliament" and establishes it has competence to make primary legislation. The key idea here is that Holyrood can legislate about anything which doesn't "relate to reserved matters." legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/…

I may be on holiday, but there's enough legal confusion floating about at the moment that I thought I'd share a few clarifications and definitions about Scots law, arrest and public order offences. Firstly, the main statute governing arrests in Scots law is now the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 - not Westminster's recent Public Order Act 2022 which doesn't apply in Scotland for these purposes. legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016/1/par…

A wee 🧵. Last year, Holyrood passed the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021. This legislation made it a crime to assault, threaten or abuse retail workers in the course of their duties. Sound familiar? legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/6/con… It should. Assault is already a common law crime. Threatening & abusive behaviour is crime too. The new Act not only recriminalised behaviour which is already criminal - it actually created lower maximum penalties for that behaviour in the name of "strengthening the law."

🗒️ Now published: the full text of the UK government's proposed Bill of Rights Bill publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill… A few highlights: as predicted, the UK government are proposing to amend the Scotland Act, switching out the Human Rights Act and installing this Bill of Rights Act in its place.

Since September last year, I've been arguing we need urgent law reform in Scotland to give complainers in sexual offence cases the automatic legal right to anonymity which already applies in the rest of the UK -and almost all of the rest of the common law world. I'm delighted today to launch a dedicated campaign website with @seonaid90 and our @GCULaw students to press on with the arguments for reform in this new session of Holyrood.

https://twitter.com/Campaign4CA/status/1393119110507253761

After the difficulties identifying a willing candidate to serve as Presiding Officer across a number of sessions, is there an argument for making Holyrood's PO a directly-elected, non-party political position? (The argument might be: nooooooo don't do this.) Counterarguments? The PO is Holyrood's servant, not its master. A separate mandate might confuse issues. MSPs also have the chance to express their view of the candidate's temperament and behaviour towards colleagues - which the voting public wouldn't necessarily know about.

Coming up in Holyrood on Tuesday, MSPs will take their final vote on the Defamation and Malicious Publications Bill. This is a critical reform, which will better protect free expression in Scotland & make it harder for frivilous actions to be brought. beta.parliament.scot/-/media/files/… At stage 3, only @fultonsnp and @andywightman are proposing any amendments. Fulton's focuses on the court power to order removal of allegedly defamatory statements. Andy wants to replace the "serious harm" threshold to sue with a "real harm" threshold. beta.parliament.scot/-/media/files/…

When it comes to legal restrictions on Holyrood's proceedings on the Scottish Government's handling of sexual harassment complaints - most of the focus has, understandably, has been on the impact of the contempt of court order on a parliamentary process which isn't privileged. As I indicated a few weeks ago, however, perhaps the most significant legal restriction in play here isn't the order - but s.162 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act 2010. Here it is: legislation.gov.uk/asp/2010/13/se…

In press reports about Salmond's scheduled appearance before Holyrood next week & written evidence, there's a lot of vague references to "legal considerations" informing what can and cannot lawfully be disclosed. For outsiders looking in, here are the most obvious limitations. Firstly, Holyrood procedures are insulated from the law of defamation in the way publishing elsewhere or holding a press conference would not be. This is in section 41 of the Scotland Act. Parliamentary privilege in Holyrood is a pretty limited compared to Westminster.

Is Bonnington just going to keep churning out articles which get basic facts about the law wrong & suggest he hasn't actually read the legislation he cites? Read s.23 of the Scotland Act. The High Court has no role whatever here. legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/…) scottishlegal.com/article/alista… Under s.23, Holyrood has the power to call witnesses on its own authority. Under s.24, a requirement is imposed when the clerk gives notice to the person or body it is imposed on. Under s.25, failure to comply is an offence. No court (nevermind the High Court) is involved.

👀independent.ie/irish-news/inv… One of the funniest cases I've ever heard of concerned a man accused of impersonating a police officer. A thread. This chap had been out for a few too many pints & decided to take a cab home. Disaster! Mid-journey, he discovers he doesn't have the cash on him to cover the fare.

This week, Holyrood finally recognised the right of prisoners serving terms of less than 12 months in jail to vote. And not before time - 15 years after the ECHR ruled the UK's blanket ban was disproportionate. In other countries this is uncontroversial.
thenational.scot/news/18254991.… Although the Government argue they've been forced by law to do this - which is substantially true - Labour and the SNP have clearly been on a bit of a political journey on this issue. Reading the official report, this didn't sound like pinching your nose & taking your medicine.

Tend to agree with this. It is worth remembering what precisely the UK Supreme Court - as opposed to the partisan spin - decided was wrong with the original scheme, when it was challenged by the Christian Institute.

https://twitter.com/DaniGaravelli1/status/1175069880690892800

The legal challenge was mounted under Article 8 of the ECHR - the right to privacy and a family life. This is a cruicial right, but it is not an unlimited one under the Convention, for obvious reasons.

Several media reports from the Court of Session getting WAAAY ahead of themselves, by suggesting Lord Doherty knocked back the substance of the challenge to the lawfulness of proroguing Westminster today. Not so. This morning, he refused only to issue an interim interdict. Headlines like "Boris Johnson can prorogue parliament, Scottish judge rules" are extremely misleading. (Though the first instance judge may well reach this conclusion next week).

A thought about the Referendums Bill. Section 33 of the Scotland Act allows UK law officers to fast track a legislative competence challenge to primary legislation straight to the Supreme Court. There is no parallel provision for executive decisions... legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/… Net effect, if this is right and I haven't missed anything essential (which is a possibility)? Then UK ministers could not immediately refer the legality of any independence referendum under the Referendums Bill to the Supreme Court...

An increasingly attractive reason to see Yes win a second #indyref is that never again will I have to sit and listen to people comprehensively mangling the legal issues underpinning the poll, including stubborn but spurious squabbles about advisory and binding referendums. People who're maintaining a referendum would be beyond Holyrood's legislative powers without a s.30? You're overstating your case. Its an arguable point of law which has never been authoritatively decided.