JS (AP) AGAINST SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2021] ScotCS CSOH_23 (04 March 2021)

JS (AP) AGAINST SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2021] ScotCS CSOH_23 (04 March 2021)

The petition was brought more than three months after the grounds first arose (2 June 2020), failing the statutory time limit. Factors favouring equitable extension were outweighed by those against, including significant delay, availability of emergency legal aid, limited practical effect, and prejudice to respondents. It was not equitable to extend the time limit; petition dismissed.

Citation
[2021] ScotCS CSOH_23
Parties
Petitioner: JS (AP); Respondents: Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission and Time Limits Hearing
Outcome
Petition dismissed as out of time; no equitable extension granted.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review Time Limits, Public Sector Equality Duty, Positive Obligations Under ECHR, Discrimination Under Article 14, Delay in Criminal Trials, COVID 19 Emergency Legislation
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Equality Law Criminal Procedure Judicial Review Time Limits Public Sector Equality Duty Positive Obligations Under ECHR Discrimination Under Article 14 +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JS (AP)

Petitioner

Scottish Ministers

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission and Time Limits Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petition was brought within the statutory three-month time limit under section 27A(1)(a) of the Court of Session Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether it was equitable to extend the time limit under section 27A(1)(b)
  3. 3 Whether the Scottish Ministers breached positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The petition was brought more than three months after the grounds first arose (2 June 2020), failing the statutory time limit. Factors favouring equitable extension were outweighed by those against, including significant delay, availability of emergency legal aid, limited practical effect, and prejudice to respondents. It was not equitable to extend the time limit; petition dismissed.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed as out of time; no equitable extension granted.

Orders

  • Petition dismissed; no permission to proceed.