Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Seems to me Napier didn't pull much out of the hat unless "use & wint" (aka. we exist, we function, and we have no plans to change that), which, as Spinner notes, answers no questions on nothing.

I had the feeling that both Mr Hill and the Sheriff had fairly similar opinions on what their respective roles would be in this (Lerwick Sheriff) court. Namely that the PF and Sheriff would act as instruments of the Scottish legal system. At one point the Sheriff stated that he did not create the law, he was concerned with applying it. Indeed there was even a passage in the final statement concerned with this which Mr Hill was clearly amused and pleased to see had been included. As Mr Hill says, local representatives of external establishments are never able to decide that their purpose is incorrect or obsolete. The whole Lerwick trial is clearly something which both parties see as being a procedure to be gone through in order that it can be appealed up the food chain to a court sitting on the mainland.

 

Without reviewing and studying a full transcript of the entire proceedings its impossible to know, ...

You will not be able to do that because there is no such thing. This was something which vexed Mr Hill somewhat and led him to request on several occasions to have a copy of the Sheriff's personal notes. This was refused each time. I had no idea that transcripts are not taken of such court sittings, but I would have anticipated Mr Hill would have found this out prior to being in the dock. It is a strange anomaly. The press and public are prohibited from using recording devices but are free to take notes. So, had Mr Hill wished, he could presumably have engaged a private stenographer (or better, two stenographers). Seems highly archaic to me, surely either have transcription done officially, or prohibit it entirely.

 

... or Napier simply railroaded over everything ...

The Sheriff's style and manner with respect to "railroading" was varied depending on what was going on. During the exchanges between him and Mr Hill concerning basic court procedure (e.g. entering the court, standing in the designated place, confirming his name) he rarely allowed Mr Hill to complete any sentences. Indeed he would typically cut him off after a couple (or less) of words had been uttered. It was remarkably curt and, frankly, struck me as highly discourteous, rude and a poor advert for the judicial system. By contrast, when the Sheriff was clarifying his understanding of the points in Mr Hill's submission, there was no hint of similar "railroading" behaviour. He allowed Mr Hill adequate time to explain things and the discussions were completely civilised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Sheriff's style and manner with respect to "railroading" was varied depending on what was going on. During the exchanges between him and Mr Hill concerning basic court procedure (e.g. entering the court, standing in the designated place, confirming his name) he rarely allowed Mr Hill to complete any sentences. Indeed he would typically cut him off after a couple (or less) of words had been uttered. It was remarkably curt and, frankly, struck me as highly discourteous, rude and a poor advert for the judicial system. By contrast, when the Sheriff was clarifying his understanding of the points in Mr Hill's submission, there was no hint of similar "railroading" behaviour. He allowed Mr Hill adequate time to explain things and the discussions were completely civilised.

 

I'd say the Sheriff (quite rightly) was making it perfectly clear to Mr Hill that any attempt at creating a 'scene' or to begin using the court as his own personal stage (which Mr Hill was clearly expecting to be able to do) would be dealt with in no uncertain terms.

 

His willingness to then discuss the matters in hand with Mr Hill would appear to back up my theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without reviewing and studying a full transcript of the entire proceedings its impossible to know, ...

You will not be able to do that because there is no such thing.

 

I'm quite surprised to hear that. I thought all court proceedings were transcribed as a matter of course (or at least recorded in some way, which would make more sense these days).

 

Disappointing too, as it offers nothing to refer to should something of note been said in this case.

 

It seems to silly to leave things open ended when the matter could have been closed by a simple statement from the Sheriff. Unless, of course, there is no such statement to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A final (for now) point of puzzlement for me, is why Hill ever voluntarily appeared in court at all. Surely if he doesn't recognise the authority of the Scottish Police or Court in Shetland, simply ignoring them (as he appeared to be trying to do initially by allegedly locking himself inside his various "Consular Vehicles") and ending up having a warrent issue for his arrest, and being forcibly physically taken to court would have clearly illustarated and reinforced his stance, while at the same time giving him the self same platform to challenge their actions. Or have I missed something?

 

Presumably he expects to ultimately win, so the number and nature of charges laid agaisnt him by the Scottish Police and Court for any and all actions undertaken in Shetland, is therefor irrelevant, as they will all be quoshed on way or another in the final cut. No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, I think you're spot on.

 

I always wondered what would have happened had the court ruled in favor of Hill. As since he has stated time and time again he did not recognize the jurisdiction of the court he would have won nothing.

 

Lets face it, we all knew what the outcome was going to be. Unfortunately (IMO) a golden opportunity to put to rest a long running legal question for Shetland has been missed, with he possible, equally unfortunate, side effect of encouraging a certain view even further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who drive un-insured, with no MOT or Road-Tax and using vehicles that are unroadworthy on public highways, HOPE they do not get caught by the Police and end up in Court.

 

This buffoon, allegedly but deliberately broke the law and has since been charged with 12 traffic offences, all because he wanted maximum publicity for himself and his half-baked theories that he's been harbouring for years.

Isn't it fortuitous, that he did not injure or kill any members of the Public or himself?

 

Shetland welcomed him from the day he arrived in these Islands (as it does to most people) but maybe his welcome has now run its course...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without reviewing and studying a full transcript of the entire proceedings its impossible to know, ...

You will not be able to do that because there is no such thing.

 

I'm quite surprised to hear that. I thought all court proceedings were transcribed as a matter of course (or at least recorded in some way, which would make more sense these days).

 

Of course the proceedings are recorded, either by audio or a scribe. There are many cases in Sheriffs courts that are widely documented. There are books published every year with cases that have a bearing on law with detailed transcripts.

 

Here is one

 

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/775/HMA-v-VIRGINIA-CREGGY

 

The site this comes from is one I have mentioned here in these strings/threads before, where many cases are publishes after being recorded in some way. Though you will have to wait until the end to see them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'v had a quick look at that site. What it says is

 

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/0/Sentencing-Statements

 

In cases where there is public interest or where the sentence may be complicated or controversial, the judge may decide to make the sentencing statement more widely available. You can read the judge’s full statement here once sentence has been passed.

 

I would suggest that this statement is written by the Sheriff prior to sentencing, which usually is done a few days after the trial, and is passed on by him to the Judiciary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are transcripts available for civil cases, they are difficult to get hold of. There seems to be an accuracy issue as well as accusations of the system in Scotland being Victorian.

 

There are also detailed pages on http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/index.asp regarding cases.

 

 

 

The Court Officials

 

The clerk of court assists the judge and assures the smooth running of the court. The clerk records the proceedings and advises court users on procedures. He or she normally sits at the table immediately in front of the judge, facing into the courtroom.

 

As this is an interesting case, it may be published. I have written to the Judiciary of Scotland to see if this can be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the proceedings are recorded, either by audio or a scribe.

Ah, so you have now decided to be a legal expert too! So, to be quite clear, are you telling us that a transcript of Mr Hill's appearances in court was indeed made?

 

Please note that there is a big difference between a transcript and a statement.

 

strings/threads
Yawn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, there, is not one. There, is a copy of the Sheriff's sentencing statement. A "transcript" of the entire proceedings is what I was referring to, which reads like the script of a play, ie. an account of every word uttered by Sheriff, PF, accused, and anyone else who contributed, all attributed as appropriate. Which, as others have already commented, I find extremely surprising and somewhat worrying, that, especially in this day and age when recording is so easily done, and stored, apparently no such provision or practice exists, or appears to be permitted.

 

While I can appreciate that it may be difficult to justify going to such lengths over "paper" and minor motoring offences, which was why this case was called in the first place, I really would have thought, and hoped, that once it became apparent that the debate had been elevated to something as fundamental and potentially far reaching as the very right of existence of the court itself, that it would have been considered prudent to take and keep relatively comprehensive records of what ensued. The fact that, by all accounts that was not done, rather calls in to question the level of seriousness the Sheriff applied to the matter he was considering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No ones said definitely it wasn't done though. I think they're all recorded. Dunno if you would get access without a legal basis, y'know like a solicitor wanting to appeal or question something said. Maybe a FOI request?

 

BTW, accuracy of transcripts is only as good as the person typing or the folk talking if it's taped. If they mumble or talk quiet or have broad accents and the typist doesn't understand or can't make out, you can't expect 100% accuracy. I don't know if it's tape or digital here, I think some of them south are digital, but I don't know what's "Victorian" about either. :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...