Connie Lee Graham v. Her Majesty’s Advocate [2022] HCJAC 36

Bill of Advocation:-On 22 July 2022 the summary sheriff at Falkirk refused to grant bail and adjourned the hearing to a later date. Here the complainer sought to advocate those decisions it being contended that the summary sheriff did not have the power to continue the diet. The circumstances were that the complainer had tendered various pleas in relation to an indictment and had then failed to attend court for sentencing. A warrant was issued for her arrest and she was subsequently arrested and brought to court from custody on 22 July 2022 on two separate matters:- (1) a new summary complaint; and (2) on an apprehension warrant in respect of the indictment matter. The summary complaint called first and, having heard submissions, the summary sheriff refused bail. The summary sheriff ordered that the case be continued until 25 July 2022 to call before a sheriff and refused bail meantime. When the outstanding case called, the summary sheriff indicated that she was unable to deal with it and would require to continue it for a sheriff to preside. The summary sheriff considered that she required to separately consider the status of the complainer for the period of continuation of the indictment case. The solicitor for the complainer submitted that it was incompetent for her to do so, and declined to make a motion for bail. The Crown opposed bail. The minutes reflect that the court considered bail and it was refused. The case was continued until 25 July 2022 and the complainer was remanded in custody until then. Here it was submitted on behalf of the complainer that in terms of section 45 of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 it was incompetent for the summary sheriff to have made the orders she did. Here the court refused the Bill. The court stated that the 2014 Act does not prohibit a summary sheriff from making administrative decisions in respect of solemn proceedings and it was only certain substantive decisions in solemn proceedings which were excluded. The court observed that in the present case the continuation of the indictment for three days was merely an administrative procedural decision. The court observed that whilst a summary sheriff is specifically prevented from presiding over a particular type of hearing like a trial diet, the summary sheriff still has power to adjourn any such diets which power also carries the power to deal with any incidental matters which may arise, including a decision on bail. The court described the notion that a summary sheriff had the power to adjourn a trial diet but not a sentencing diet as an “absurdity”.