Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

emedy is provided for by law” 49 . Despite some authority to the contrary, itwas not until recently regarded as a remedy available to review interlocutorsof the High Court, whether at appellate or first instance level 50 . It is verymuch a remnant from a bygone age before criminal procedures were regulatedby the detailed statutory provisions which exist today. Indeed, it comes froman era before the creation of the right of appeal from first instance High Courtverdicts in 1926 51 and the introduction of the SCCRC in 1997.8.1.21 The 1995 Act provides 52 , in relation to appeals in solemn proceedings, that:“every interlocutor and sentence pronounced by the High Court…shall be final and conclusive and not subject to review by any courtwhatsoever…”.It might have been thought that this was quite clear. A decision of the HighCourt (i.e. one with a quorum of at least three) cannot be overturned byanother decision of the same court. It is final. But in Hoekstra 53 the courtappeared to overturn one of its own decisions. Although the facts there werevery special, this was, and is, in some quarters perceived as authority to usethis procedure to challenge any decision of the High Court in solemn appeals.Attempts to discourage this have been made 54 , but applications for the use ofthe power continue to be lodged; designed to challenge the merits of finaldecisions of the Court, whether directly or under the guise of identifying some49 Anderson v HM Advocate 1974 SLT 239, LJG (Emslie) at 24050 Hume ii 508; Alison: Practice of the Criminal Law i. 23 referring to inferior courts51 now including a right to appeal from preliminary rulings with leave under the 1995 Act s 7452 s 124 see Mitchell v HM Advocate [2011] HCJAC 35, LJG (Hamilton) at para 1253 Hoekstra v HM Advocate (No 2) 2000 JC 38754 Beck Petitioner 2010 SCCR 222342