LAWYER groups have backed early resolutions for less serious criminal cases to help clear a three-year trial backlog which has built up during the pandemic.
Sheriff Court summary criminal cases, where a sheriff hears a case sitting alone without a jury, widely resumed in Scotland yesterday after being largely suspended for more than three months.
Under summary trials, the maximum jail term is 12 months and the biggest fine is £10,000.
David Fisken, the vice president of the Glasgow Bar Association, warned there was a theoretical danger of people accused of crimes pleading guilty because they could spend longer on remand than any custodial sentence they may receive.
He said: “If a client is adamant he wants to plead guilty and tells you he has done it, there is at least a danger they have done it to have a swifter resolution to it.
“There are real concerns over the mental health of the accused, victims and witnesses having these sorts of things hanging over them. There’s no doubt it’s a massive problem.”
As of April 9, 1801 people were being held in prisons awaiting trial, compared with an average of 1383 throughout 2019-20, Scottish Prison Service figures show.
Debbie Wilson, the convener of the Law Society of Scotland’s Criminal Law Committee, said more meetings between prosecutors and defence lawyers outside courtrooms could resolve cases early by agreement.
The move, called Pre-Intermediate Diet Meetings (Pidms), would see only cases which are definitely ready for trial called on, reducing time-consuming last-minute adjournments and late guilty pleas, Judiciary of Scotland guidance states.
It would also prevent witnesses and complainers having to attend court unnecessarily, it adds.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here