110.In a similar manner to inserted sections 5A to 5E, sections 7A to 7D extend the jurisdiction of JP courts, and that of those hearing JP cases, in respect of custody appearances. They also make provision allowing sheriffs to preside over JP courts in relation to the exercise of the national jurisdiction (in addition to justices of the peace and summary sheriffs, who ordinarily preside over JP courts).
111.Section 7A provides that, where a person appears in the JP court for the first time from custody in criminal proceedings, that calling of the case may be taken in any JP court in Scotland. The case may also be heard by any justice of the peace, summary sheriff or sheriff of any sheriffdom.
112.If there is more than one person subject to the proceedings, subsection (3) allows the proceedings to call before any JP court and any justice of the peace, summary sheriff or sheriff, provided that at least one of the people subject to the proceedings is appearing for the first time from custody in connection with it. This means that, for example, where two people are co-accused of committing a crime, the case can call before any JP court even though only one of the accused has been arrested for the crime and is therefore appearing from custody.
113.Subsection (4) confirms that it is for the procurator fiscal to determine in which JP court the case is to be heard.
114.Subsection (5) provides the JP court that has heard the initial calling of the case with continuing jurisdiction over the proceedings (and that JP court can be presided over by a justice of the peace, summary sheriff or sheriff of any sheriffdom). However, subsection (6) qualifies this and provides that where the accused pleads not guilty and the prosecutor does not accept that plea, the continuing jurisdiction under subsection (5) will cease at the end of the diet at which that plea was made. Such a scenario will mean it is likely that the case will go to trial, which will therefore be handled by the court that has normal territorial jurisdiction for the case. If an accused is charged with, say, two offences and pleads guilty to one and not guilty to the other, the continuing jurisdiction that subsection (5) creates over the proceedings will be lost only insofar as the proceedings relate to the charge to which the accused has pled not guilty. The court that has jurisdiction by virtue of sub-paragraph (5) would therefore be able to deal with the guilty plea as it sees fit, including by sentencing the accused for that. Subsection (7) provides that where the court’s national jurisdiction is not brought to an end as described in subsection (6), the court can continue to deal with the proceedings until their conclusion.
115.Subsection (8) confirms that where a sheriff is hearing a JP case under inserted section 7A or 7B, the jurisdiction and powers of the JP court are exercisable by the sheriff. The court itself will still be a JP court and the fact that a sheriff is presiding over it should result in no difference in treatment compared to a JP court presided over by a justice of the peace or summary sheriff. For example, where section 52A of the 1995 Act applies and there is a requirement to transfer jurisdiction to a sheriff, such a transfer would still need to be made despite the fact that the person presiding over the JP court is a sheriff.
Interpretation Part 1: Criminal Justice Modernisation Inserted section 7A – Jurisdiction for callings of custody cases in a JP court