Lord Hope

Lord Hope of Craighead has said he is “very uneasy” with clause 40 of the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which allows the Lord Justice General to remove a judge of the proposed Sexual Offences Court, The Times reports.

“It raises a question in my mind about the traditional independence of the judge who has been appointed to that court,” he said.

“Because there is a hint here there would be pressure on the lord chief justice [sic] to remove from office Judge X, who is apparently acquitting more people than the public think he or she should be.

“To have a judge exposed to removal because of performance is quite contrary to the basic principle of the independence of the judiciary. We’ve never had that kind of approach to judicial appointments before.”

Lord Hope added: “I would be very worried if I was to have to run the system where I had a power of removal. Not only would I be exposed to public pressure, but it would undermine the independence of the judge who was being criticised.

“Removal under statute would attract publicity, and the judge in question might protest quite strongly to the lord chief justice: ‘Why are you removing me? I’m doing the job as best I can and the fact I’m acquitting people is nothing to do with you. I’ve seen the case, you haven’t.’”

The bill, which is currently before MSPs, has been widely criticised in the legal community and the proposed juryless trials pilot has already been undermined with threats of a mass boycott by defence lawyers.