Starrs v. Ruxton
Scotland High Court of Justiciary
(2000) J.C. 208 (H.J.C.) (Scot.) (1999)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
In 1707, the Act of Union joined Scotland and England into one political entity, which later became known as the United Kingdom. Despite the Act of Union, Scotland maintained a separate judiciary. Under this separate judiciary system, temporary sheriffs appointed for one-year terms heard criminal cases. Starrs (defendant) appeared before a temporary sheriff for a criminal matter. On appeal, Starrs challenged the process of appointment of the temporary sheriffs. Starrs argued that the appointment process violated the judicial independence guaranteed under the European Convention of Human Rights. The Scottish government, represented by the solicitor general, argued that the system of appointment was not a system of temporary appointments that violate Article 6(1). The solicitor general further argued that the caselaw from Europe and Canada provide that fixed-term appointments like the appointment of the sheriffs are not objectionable provided there are sufficient guarantees of the independence and impartiality of the judge. The solicitor general argued the system was a longer-term system of part-time appointments needed for the continued functioning of the judiciary.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.