Lord Justice-General Hamilton considered the role of the Commission and its relationship with the court, and stated: ‘Although this court has been given the power to reject a reference in language that replicates the provision applicable to the Commission (section 194DA(1), (2)), it cannot be right for us simply to duplicate the Commission’s function and give effect to our own view. In light of the impressive record of the Commission, it is unlikely that we will have cause to differ from its judgment on this point. I think that we are entitled to assume, unless the contrary is apparent, that the Commission has considered the criteria set out in section 194C and has duly made its independent and informed judgment on them. In my view, we should reject a reference only where the Commission has demonstrably failed in its task; for example, by failing to apply the statutory test at all; by ignoring relevant factors; by considering irrelevant factors; by giving inadequate reasons, or by making a decision that is perverse.’
Judges:
Lord Justice-General Hamilton
Citations:
[2012] ScotHC HCJAC – 121, 2012 SCL 1027, [2012] HCJAC 121
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Cited by:
Cited – Gordon, Re Judicial Review SCS 24-Jan-2013
Judicial Review of a decision of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission not to refer his case to the High Court in terms of section 194B of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
Held: The application was refused.
As to the . .
Cited – Gordon v Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Scotland) SC 22-Mar-2017
The appellant the Commission’s decision not to refer his case back to the court. They had agreed that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred, but concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to make such a referral. His statement had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.464706