Why attacks on the Supreme Court are seriously flawed
In response to Maggie Scott's robust criticism of Scottish ministers regarding Scots law and the Supreme Court ("Salmond in the dock for Supreme Court 'insults'", The Herald, July 11) a Government spokesman stated: "Scottish cases can be considered by the UK Supreme Court whether or not they are considered to raise a point of public importance, a system that the report by the independent review group described as 'seriously flawed'."
Two of those Scottish cases were the Cadder and Fraser appeals and both of those cases raised points of fundamental public importance – human rights in the context of Scots criminal law. A very “independent review group” called the Supreme Court reviewed those cases and in effect, unanimously concluded that the Scottish courts produced “seriously flawed” judgments concerning the role of human rights jurisprudence in the context of Scots law – hence the Supreme Court over-ruled the Scottish courts.
Why attacks on the Supreme Court are seriously flawed
In response to Maggie Scott's robust criticism of Scottish ministers regarding Scots law and the Supreme Court ("Salmond in the dock for Supreme Court 'insults'", The Herald, July 11) a Government spokesman stated: "Scottish cases can be considered by the UK Supreme Court whether or not they are considered to raise a point of public importance, a system that the report by the independent review group described as 'seriously flawed'."
Two of those Scottish cases were the Cadder and Fraser appeals and both of those cases raised points of fundamental public importance – human rights in the context of Scots criminal law. A very “independent review group” called the Supreme Court reviewed those cases and in effect, unanimously concluded that the Scottish courts produced “seriously flawed” judgments concerning the role of human rights jurisprudence in the context of Scots law – hence the Supreme Court over-ruled the Scottish courts.
Most read Most commented
Don't show me this again.