5. House of Lords (appeals only) Court of Session: Inner House (mainly appeals, but some original jurisdiction Court of Session: Outer House (exclusive jurisdiction over judicial review/status Sheriff Principal (appeals only) Sheriff (deals with most of cases exclusive jurisdiction less than £5,000 and evictions)
6. High Court as Court of Appeal High Court of Justiciary (jury of 15; exclusive power to try murder, rape and treason) Sheriff Solemn Court (jury of 15) Sheriff Summary Court (sheriff sits alone) JP Court (lay or stipendiary magistrate)
SCOTTISH CIVIL COURTS (Arrows show routes for appeals)
SCOTTISH CRIMINAL COURTS (Arrows indicate routes for appeals) Sentencing Powers District Court (lay magistrate): 60 days and/or £2,500 District Court (stipendiary) and 3 months (6 months) and/or Sheriff Summary: £5,000 Sheriff Solemn: 3 years and/or unlimited fine High Court: Unlimited Importance in terms of cases dealt with: District Court: 42% Sheriff Court: 58% High Court 1% NB: There are a wide range of other disposals available to the courts, e.g.., admonition, probation, community service order. In terms of importance, around 68% of offenders are fined, 10% admonished or ordered to find caution, 11% sent to prison or young offenders institution, 4% put on probation and 4% given a community service order (1995 figures).
British Oxygen Company Limited v Board of Trade [1971] AC 610 . At page 625 Lord Reid said this: … the circumstances in which discretions are exercised vary enormously … the general rule is that anyone who has to exercise a statutory discretion must not "shut his ears to an application"… I do not think there is any great difference between a policy and a rule. There may be cases where an officer or authority ought to listen to a substantial argument reasonably presented urging a change of policy. What they must not do is to refuse to listen at all. But a Ministry or large authority may have had to deal already with a multitude of similar applications and then they will have almost certainly have evolved a policy so precise that it could well be called a rule. There can be no objection to that, provided the authority is always willing to listen to anyone with something new to say – of course I do not mean to say that there need be an oral hearing. In the present case the respondent's officers have carefully considered all that the appellants have had to say and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so. Quoted in R(S) v Hampshire CC [2009] EWHC 2537 (Admin) at 37
![INTRODUCTION ,[object Object]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/regulationofsocialworkservicespp1997-100301142904-phpapp02/85/Regulation-Of-Social-Work-Services-Pp1997-1-320.jpg)
![Sources of law ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()