Analysis: Keeping the delivery of justice closer to home has benefits that outweigh cost-savings

THOSE of us whose jobs see us at court every day have been waiting and wondering just how the cuts would affect the Scottish Courts Service.

We feared that it would be bad and, if true, these proposals make our fears a horrible reality.

We did not expect the courts to be insulated from the cuts when almost every public service was being hit. But what would be the impact of cuts as severe as those apparently in contemplation?

In times of austerity the delivery of justice at a local level might seem a luxury, but I wonder if we have taken for granted the impact and benefits of local delivery of justice, with local newspapers reporting on the outcome of cases involving people or places you know.

To my mind this proximity assists in achieving some of the important aims of any justice system.

Centralising the delivery of justice in a much smaller number of courts may be an obvious solution, but the further away our courts get from the communities they serve, the greater the possible disconnect which might be felt by those communities.

Especially in more rural areas, there will be real hardship for some accused, witnesses and jurors, as they have to travel considerable distances to obtain justice or participate in its delivery.

In the hub courts in the main towns and cities, there are already concerns about capacity, as too many cases are put into too few courtrooms.

Justice does not come cheap, but it is a vital part of any civilised country.

While cuts in the courts were unavoidable, with some consequent negative impact, we need to realise that the proposed changes are likely to mean justice being done more slowly, as well as further away from communities. Trying to do more for less almost never works to everyone’s satisfaction.

• John Scott, QC, is a solicitor advocate and prominent spokesman on human rights issues