Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

jurisprudence, it must be recognised that the reasonable time requirement ofArticle 6 applies to appeals 7 . Although there are several time limitsstipulating periods for the lodging of appeals and related documents, there areno time limits within which the court must hear and determine an appeal. It isnot unreasonable to observe that, in recent years, the reputation of the systemhas been tarnished by the lengths of time which it has taken to progress someappeals 8 . This has been particularly worrying in the cases where the appellanthas ultimately been successful.8.1.3 It has not been possible to conduct an in-depth analysis of all the reasons forthe delay in individual cases. These will be varied, although the ultimateresponsibility lies in practical terms with the court. However, it wasdisturbing to note, during the course of the Review, that some practitioners didnot see it as part of their responsibility to progress appeals with due speed anddiligence. Rather, the approach taken by a few of those practitioners was thatit was for the court, and the court alone, to do so. The legal responsibility interms of Article 6 rests with the United Kingdom Government, but it is, or atleast ought to be, the ethical obligation of everyone in the legal professionengaged in appellate work to assist the court in ensuring that cases areprogressed efficiently.8.1.4 One peculiarity of the system is that, even in the most serious cases, it isunusual for trial counsel to appear to argue the appeal. Indeed, it appears7 Gillespie v HM Advocate 2003 SLT 2108 see e.g. Coubrough’s Extrx v HM Advocate 2010 SCCR 473 which took four years from a SCCRCreference in respect of a murder conviction in 1971. The appellant had died by the time of the finalhearing332