The case for keeping Haddington courts

The threatened closure of the centuries-old sheriff court at Haddington and its partner JP court (your report, 23 May) is to be opposed. It is of concern that SNP MSPs and councillors have not opposed the move.

The closure of Haddington and the court at Peebles, with the intention of transferring work to Edinburgh, has implications for both criminal and civil justice.

Closure will end local decision making that draws on local knowledge. Financial savings are presented as a reason for closure but there are cost implications of moving business to Edinburgh. For instance, there will be increased travel costs to criminal defendants in getting to Edinburgh.

Some may encounter difficulties getting there. Transport from the east of the county is not regular and is expensive compared with the west. Midlothian North and Musselburgh is served by Colin Beattie MSP.

He has said his constituents have not raised concerns. Towns such as Musselburgh have ample public transport to Edinburgh.

Defendants will also need to pay increased fees for lawyers travelling to the capital, which will have an impact on the Legal Aid budget. There will be increased costs for witnesses taking time off work and travelling to Edinburgh.

There will be increased costs for police officers attending court, and providing cover for them while they are away from their usual duties.

With respect to civil work, there will be increased delays to decision making in areas such as adoption and guardianship for adults with incapacity. From experience, Edinburgh guardianship cases can take six months or more to come to court. If an individual contests being moved to a care home from hospital, this can mean a hospital bed being blocked for a long time, with resultant costs.

Even if someone agrees to move to a care home, many homes will not accept an ­individual until financial guardianship is determined.

Alternatively, individuals can build up vast sums in care home debt. In some cases people have died before 
matters have been agreed by the court.

We have already seen the centralisation of decisions on diversion from prosecution away from local procurators-fiscal to Stirling, leading to long waits and anxiety for those affected.

This further reduction in service for both criminal and civil justice should not go ahead. If it does, it will be to the detriment of local justice.

I therefore contend that the ongoing costs of closing the courts at Haddington is greater than keeping them open, both in monetary terms and in terms of access to justice.

Jacquie Bell

High Street

Belhaven, Dunbar