Written Question · S4W-22401 · Session 4
Whether the provisions of the Claim of Rights Act 1689 in relation to the right to appeal to the monarch against perceived judicial injusti…
The question
To ask the Scottish Government whether the provisions of the Claim of Rights Act 1689 in relation to the right to appeal to the monarch against perceived judicial injustice remain in force and, if not, what information it has on when these were revoked and for what reason.
The answer
The provisions of the Claim of Right Act 1689 in relation to the right to appeal to the monarch against perceived judicial injustice remain in force to the extent that the right is now exercisable via appeal to the United Kingdom Supreme Court, in accordance with the usual rules of court, and civil procedure.
The Claim of Right Act 1689 provided a right for a person to appeal a decision of the Court of Session to the Parliament of Scotland (the ‘monarch in Parliament’) and not necessarily directly to the sovereign as an individual. Following the Acts of Union and the abolition of the Scottish Parliament, this right was effectively transferred to the House of Lords, meaning that decisions of the Court of Session could be appealed to the House of Lords. In 2009 the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords was transferred to the new United Kingdom Supreme Court, including appeals from the Court of Session. The right contained in the 1689 Act has evolved into the right of appeal to the Supreme Court and is not a parallel right of appeal alongside the normal rules of civil procedure.
The Scottish Government’s understanding is that the 1689 Act concerned proceedings of the Court of Session and does not entitle an individual to challenge a conviction or sentence of a Scottish criminal court by petitioning the sovereign or the government on Her Majesty’s behalf. The House of Lords never assumed appellate jurisdiction for criminal cases following the Union. The mechanism for challenging a conviction or sentence of a criminal court is by appeal in accordance with the normal rules of criminal procedure. An individual who remains dissatisfied with the outcome of that appeal can ask the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to consider investigating whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred, which can in certain circumstances result in the case being referred back to the appeal court.
The Claim of Right Act 1689 provided a right for a person to appeal a decision of the Court of Session to the Parliament of Scotland (the ‘monarch in Parliament’) and not necessarily directly to the sovereign as an individual. Following the Acts of Union and the abolition of the Scottish Parliament, this right was effectively transferred to the House of Lords, meaning that decisions of the Court of Session could be appealed to the House of Lords. In 2009 the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords was transferred to the new United Kingdom Supreme Court, including appeals from the Court of Session. The right contained in the 1689 Act has evolved into the right of appeal to the Supreme Court and is not a parallel right of appeal alongside the normal rules of civil procedure.
The Scottish Government’s understanding is that the 1689 Act concerned proceedings of the Court of Session and does not entitle an individual to challenge a conviction or sentence of a Scottish criminal court by petitioning the sovereign or the government on Her Majesty’s behalf. The House of Lords never assumed appellate jurisdiction for criminal cases following the Union. The mechanism for challenging a conviction or sentence of a criminal court is by appeal in accordance with the normal rules of criminal procedure. An individual who remains dissatisfied with the outcome of that appeal can ask the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to consider investigating whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred, which can in certain circumstances result in the case being referred back to the appeal court.
In the Official Report
No contribution in the Official Report cites S4W-22401 by reference.