PETITION TO THE NOBILE OFFICIUM BY SU [2021] ScotCS CSIH_65 (07 December 2021)

PETITION TO THE NOBILE OFFICIUM BY SU [2021] ScotCS CSIH_65 (07 December 2021)

The petition is incompetent because the petitioner is not devoid of alternative remedies; section 163 does not exclude corrective remedies such as reduction or suspension, and the circumstances are neither exceptional nor unforeseen to justify resort to the nobile officium.

Citation
[2021] ScotCS CSIH_65
Parties
Petitioner: SU; First Respondent: Anne-Marie McGinley; Second Respondent: SA; Third Respondent: HA; Fourth Respondent: SS; Sixth Respondent: Lord Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Petition to the Nobile Officium / Competency Hearing
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Children's Referral Proceedings, Concurrent Criminal and Civil Proceedings, Nobile Officium, Remedies for Interlocutory Decisions, ECHR Rights, Legislative Competence
Family Law Child Protection Criminal Law Constitutional Law Children's Referral Proceedings Concurrent Criminal and Civil Proceedings Nobile Officium Remedies for Interlocutory Decisions +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SU

Petitioner

Anne-Marie McGinley

First Respondent

SA

Second Respondent

HA

Third Respondent

SS

Fourth Respondent

Lord Advocate

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition to the Nobile Officium / Competency Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is a petition to the nobile officium competent where interlocutory decisions in children's referral proceedings are not appealable?
  2. 2 Does section 163 of the Children's Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 exclude corrective remedies such as reduction or suspension?
  3. 3 Does section 179 infringe ECHR rights or exceed legislative competence?

Ratio Decidendi

The petition is incompetent because the petitioner is not devoid of alternative remedies; section 163 does not exclude corrective remedies such as reduction or suspension, and the circumstances are neither exceptional nor unforeseen to justify resort to the nobile officium.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • first respondent's first plea-in-law sustained
  • petition dismissed