LAWYERS have raised concerns about justices of the peace being asked to deal with increasingly complex cases while being given legal advice behind closed doors.

They claim road traffic law is growing more complicated and some cases should be heard in front of a sheriff, with one solicitor saying he fears many JPs are "simply not up to the challenge" laid down by technical defences.

JPs – who require no formal legal qualifications – are assisted by legal advisers in court but receive guidance on the law off the bench, outwith the presence of the prosecution and defence.

Despite advisers often detailing their advice on returning to court, solicitors have claimed this is unfair on their clients.

Graham Walker, a solicitor who specialises in road traffic law, said: "When the JP courts were largely dealing with petty crime, the issues were in general simple and often relied upon good commonsense decisions.

"But nowadays these courts are being used as a source of justice on the cheap and it means JPs are being asked to make decisions on a daily basis in relation to complex areas of road traffic law.

"There is no doubt there is a place for JPs in our lower courts that allow low-level crime to be dealt with by such worthy and respected individuals, but we must recognise certain technical defences provide a significant intellectual challenge to some and it may be that many are simply not up to that challenge."

He added: "They do, of course, have legal advisers sitting in court with them, but I have serious concerns about that whole process as it usually involves legal advice being given outwith the presence of the defence and the prosecution.

"If we consider a jury trial, one would never tolerate a jury being provided with legal advice outwith the presence of the defence and prosecution.

"I don't want to take a swipe at the justices as they are clearly highly committed individuals, but they seem to have become the default position for processing vast amounts of road traffic cases at the lowest price to the state and I consider that to be far from equitable and fair to the accused."

Leading QC Paul McBride agreed some cases should be prosecuted at sheriff court level instead of being heard before a Justice of the Peace.

He said: "The law in relation to drink-driving, speeding, failing to provide a breath test has become increasingly complex, but to be fair to the JPs, they don't decide which cases come before them. Even for very experienced lawyers, standard road traffic cases can be quite challenging. They are unlike any other cases JPs have to deal with and are often difficult cases and the law isn't always crystal clear.

"Some of the cases should probably be prosecuted in the sheriff court."

The advocate added: "With juries, a judge or sheriff directs them in open court, and sheriffs are legally qualified so are able to make decisions themselves off the bench. The JPs, they go off the bench and are provided with legal advice. It's the only court in the country where legal advice is given off the bench. There's an issue about that which has yet to be tested."

JPs undergo an introductory training programme before sitting on the bench and receive at least 12 hours additional training a year. Advocate John Scott QC, who has been involved in the training, said: "There's been concern over many years about the JP courts whether the justices are up to the job. But when the unification of the court structure took place, the training improved and JPs are now much better equipped to deal with some of these concerns."

A Scottish Government spokesman said: "Decisions on the allocation to the appropriate forum for prosecution are entirely a matter for the Crown Office."

A Crown Office spokesman said the decisions to prosecute in certain courts were "outcome focused" to "take into account the facts and circumstances of each case and the potential disposal".