Blog
Mental Health Awareness Week
Monday 15th May 2023 marks the beginning of Mental Health Awareness Week. In recognition of this Fleming & Reid Solicitors would like to highlight the work of our Mental Health team.
Our team of Mental Health lawyers include Curators ad Litem appointed by the Mental Health Tribunal. The Curator ad Litem is appointed to safeguard the interests of a patient before the tribunal. Consequently, our work is approved by the Mental Health Tribunal Service.
The abolishment of the 'Not Proven' verdict in Scotland
The ‘not proven’ verdict is a second acquittal verdict unique to Scots law, that exists alongside the ‘not guilty’ verdict. An accepted definition of the ‘not proven’ verdict does not exist, yet it can be suggested that it is used when the jury thinks the accused to be probably guilty but does not find that the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Judges have been instructed not to endeavour to explain the difference between the two acquittals. Consequently, jurors receive no direction or clarification on this difference between ‘not proven’ and ‘not guilty’, or on the meaning of the verdict in general.
In September 2022, then First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon announced the introduction of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. If this is passed, the ‘not proven’ verdict will be abolished.
No Royal Pardon
Edward Fitzalan-Howard, the 18th Duke of Norfolk, was recently banned from driving for six months, despite claiming he needed his licence to arrange the King’s upcoming coronation. In light of this we discuss how special reasons and exceptional hardship can be used to avoid disqualification from driving or your licence being endorsed with penalty points.
The Duke of Norfolk was caught using his mobile phone while driving, an offence which he admitted in the Magistrates’ Court. He already had 9 points on his licence meaning that a compulsory endorsement of 6 points would lead to a ban. However, the Duke had hoped to avoid this by claiming “exceptional hardship” due to the nature of his responsibilities. The court accepted that this was a unique case due to his role in society. However in imposing disqualification ruled that the hardship faced must be exceptional and not merely an inconvenience.
RSS