Scottish bail conditions breach human rights to liberty, rules Scottish court

10 February 2012 by

Brought to you by Andrew Tickell

Cameron v. Procurator Fiscal [2012] ScotHC HCJAC_19 – Read judgment

Amongst Scots lawyers, few judicial observations are more notorious than those uttered by Lord Cranworth in the House of Lords in Bartonshill Coal Co v Reid in 1858.  “If such be the law of England,” he said, “on what ground can it be argued not to be the law of Scotland?” Today, in a United Kingdom further complicated by the asymmetric devolution of the 1990s, it isn’t unusual to encounter a Cranworthy combination of perplexity and indifference amongst English lawyers when it comes to the structure and implications of devolution elsewhere in these islands.

On one level, this is perfectly understandable.  Devolution is a matter for the Welsh, Northern Irish and Scots, the proposition runs. Let them get on with it. For those of us interested in the developing constitution, human rights and judicial review, weary of re-reading hand-me-down copies of Dicey, this inattention is to be regretted. The emerging body of litigation around devolution, and the powers of devolved institutions, is producing some of the most interesting “constitutional” cases in Britain today.

This week furnishes another, from the Scottish courts. In Cameron v. Procurator Fiscal, Livingston, the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh decided that the provisions of a 2010 reform to the standard Scottish bail conditions were incompatible with Article 5 rights to liberty under the European Convention.

I’ll return to the detail of Cameron in a moment, but it is worth pausing beforehand, to emphasise the – generally overlooked – jurisdiction now enjoyed by Scottish courts in relation to Acts of the Scottish Parliament. As the debate around the proposed repeal of the Human Rights Act continues to fume, what generally isn’t mentioned is that the devolution settlements all incorporate human rights review of the statutes and measures passed in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, quite independently of the Human Rights Act.

The remedies available to aggrieved litigants challenging the laws adopted by devolved institutions differ too. While courts reviewing Westminster legislation are constrained only to offer declaratory remedies under the Human Rights Act – “declarations of incompatibility” which do “not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement” of Westminster Acts found to be incompatible with Convention rights – for Holyrood, Stormont and the Senedd, this is precisely the legal consequence of a judicial finding that their primary legislation is incompatible.

Under the Scotland Act, any law passed by Holyrood which violates Convention rights is simply outside the parliament’s legal competence, is invalid, and courts can strike offending provisions down, rather than being limited to mannered declaratory disposals. The Northern Ireland Act and the 2006 Government of Wales Act both include similar provisions.

This is precisely what happened in the Cameron case in Edinburgh this week. The impugned reform, enacted in Holyrood’s last session, added two new provisions to the standard Scottish bail conditions, requiring that any bailed person:

§24(5)(cb) “whenever reasonably instructed by a constable to do so –
(i) participates in an identification parade or other identification procedure; and
(ii) allows any print, impression or sample to be taken from the accused”

For the Scottish Government, adding these additional conditions to standard bail conditions was primarily seen an efficiency measure, seeking to:

“remove the need for the Crown to seek a further special bail condition for an accused to make themselves available for attendance at any ID procedure. Such conditions are becoming more and more common and by including it in the standard conditions, this will save court time through the Procurator Fiscal not having to ask the court to impose the additional condition.”

Under the much-amended Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, these standard bail conditions are mandatory, meaning that courts granting bail applications are bound to give these powers to police, whatever the circumstances of the individual case. Not justified, concluded Lords Eassie, Brailsford and Osborne. Holding that Article 5 was engaged by pre-trial bail conditions, the Court identified the “fundamental problem” with the new obligatory DNA and ID bail conditions is their elimination of …

“… all elements of judicial discretion and supervision of the question whether the particular accused may be required to submit to evidence gathering or other investigatory procedures as a counterpart for his obtaining pre-trial liberty. As was pointed out in the discussion before us, while an accused who has not been in custody may be required to participate in an identification procedure by virtue of section 267B of the 1995 Act, whether he should be subjected to that requirement is a matter of judicial decision in the individual circumstances of the case and provision is made for his having an opportunity to make representations to the court. The taking of prints, impressions or samples from such an accused would, of course, require judicial warrant. To that extent we have come to the view that the inclusion of the condition in question as a mandatory condition on the grant of bail is incompatible with the rights secured to the citizen by Article 5 ECHR. As earlier indicated, the Crown frankly indicated its difficulty in advancing to us any comprehensible reason for the amendment effected by the 2010 Act which might require to be weighed in any assessment of its compatibility with the Convention.” [para 19]

For regular observers of Scottish Courts, the striking feature of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Cameron is its confidence – a terse analysis, striking down the offending provision without outward signs of reticence, or deference to the legislature.  Despite the theoretical strength of human rights review under the Scotland Act, in practice, some have expressed concerns that Scottish judges were proving overly reluctant to exercise their human rights jurisdiction in a thoroughgoing and potentially controversial way.

Prominent Scottish QC Maggie Scott, for example, has argued that “there has been a failure by the Scottish courts, in particular the appeal court, to engage in human rights implementation into Scots law”,  after the High Court’s deferential and cautious approach to the human rights claims advanced in Cadder and Fraser were dramatically and rather scathingly overturned on appeal to London

The Appeal Court’s change of tone in Cameron may well be an indication that, stung by these criticisms, Scottish courts are beginning much more confidently and more robustly to apply themselves to the human rights norms that constitute Scotland’s “constitution”, under devolution.

This guest post is by Andrew Tickell, a doctoral Researcher at the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford. You can find him on Twitter as@peatworrier

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

1 comment;

  1. Wonderful for the Scots and the Welsh. Laws that are incompatible with Human Rights no-matter which parliament made them should be struck out.
    Laws such as the proceeds of crime act POAC 2002 should by reviewed in this way.

    Well done Scotland’s Appeal Courts please can you now review all the Laws passed by Westminster that have taken away human rights in England.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: