Starrs v Ruxton
Temporary sheriffs, appointed for one year at a time by the Lord Advocate who also prosecuted, were not an independent and impartial tribunal.
Facts
In Scotland, temporary sheriffs were appointed by the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the Lord Advocate, who was also head of the prosecution service. They were appointed for one year at a time and could be removed or not reappointed without any reason being given. Mr Starrs and Mr Chalmers were prosecuted before a temporary sheriff, and they argued that the temporary sheriff was not an independent and impartial tribunal as required by article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which applied in Scotland under the Scotland Act 1998.
Legal principle
The High Court of Justiciary held that temporary sheriffs were not independent and impartial tribunals for the purposes of article 6. Their short tenure, the possibility of their not being reappointed at the discretion of the executive, and the role of the Lord Advocate, who was the prosecutor, in their appointment meant that they lacked the necessary security of tenure and independence from the executive. Lord Reed said that judicial independence requires security of tenure, and that the possibility of not being reappointed could create a temptation to please the executive. The system of temporary sheriffs was abolished and replaced with part time sheriffs with greater security of tenure.
Related cases on judiciary, legal profession and access to justice
- Airey v Ireland (1979) 2 EHRR 305
- Arthur J S Hall & Co v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615
- Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2019] UKSC 38, [2020] AC 629
- Helow v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 62, [2008] 1 WLR 2416
- Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13, [2011] 2 AC 398
- Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd [2003] UKHL 35, [2004] 1 All ER 187
- Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] QB 451
- Medcalf v Mardell [2002] UKHL 27, [2003] 1 AC 120
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
