DOCSLIB.ORG

Scottish Civil Courts Review: a Consultation Paper

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ASCcONoSUtLtTiATsIOhN PCAPEiR vil Courts Review AScottish CONSULTATION PAPER Civil Courts Review © Crown copyright 2007 ISBN: 978-0-9552511-1-5 Produced for the Scottish Civil Courts Review by RR Donnelley B52804 11/07 Published by the Scottish Civil Courts Review, November 2007 The text pages of this document are printed on recycled paper and are 100% recyclable CIVIL COURTS REVIEW – CONSULTATION PAPER Foreword by the Lord Justice Clerk The work of the Civil Courts Review began on 4 April 2007. Since then we have received many representations from a wide range of individuals and interest groups. We are grateful to them all for their contributions to our work. We have decided to publish this Consultation Paper at this stage in order to inform interested parties of the principal issues that have been raised with us, to report on our researches to date and to set out what appear to us to be the practicable options for reform. In Annex D we provide certain statistical data that may stimulate further discussion. This Paper does not set out a closed agenda. We will welcome suggestions as to other questions and options that we may not have considered. From the representations that we have received so far, it is apparent to us that there is a widespread desire for reform; but we have reached no conclusions on any of the questions that we have posed. I wish to make it clear at this stage that reform in the civil courts cannot be seen apart from the growth in criminal business, which is taking up an increasing amount of the judicial and administrative resources of the courts. Unless that problem is dealt with effectively, it is probable that any proposals for civil justice reform will have only the most limited practical significance. On behalf of the Board, I thank the members of our Review Team and our Policy Group for their expertise and commitment, which has enabled us to reach this stage of the Review in so short a time. We invite responses to this Consultation Paper by 31 March 2008. After that, we may conduct more specific consultations on individual topics before proceeding to our conclusions. Rt Hon Lord Gill November 2007 CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 2: ACCESS TO JUSTICE 9 CHAPTER 3: THE COST AND FUNDING OF LITIGATION 17 CHAPTER 4: THE STRUCTURE AND JURISDICTION OF 27 THE CIVIL COURTS CHAPTER 5: PRINCIPLES FOR REFORM TO CIVIL 45 PROCEDURE AND KEY PROCEDURAL ISSUES CHAPTER 6: WORKING METHODS OF THE CIVIL COURTS 61 Annex A: Members of Policy Group and Review Team 85 Annex B: Civil Legal Assistance and Financial Eligibility 87 Criteria Annex C: Jurisdiction and Allocation of Business between the 89 Court of Session and Sheriff Courts Annex D: Business of the Civil Courts 95 Annex E: Research relating to Party Litigants in the Inner 135 House CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 This chapter explains the background to the Review and the context in which it began its work. Remit of the Review 1.2 On 12 February 2007 the then Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson, announced a wide ranging review of the civil courts system in Scotland with the following remit: To review the provision of civil justice by the courts in Scotland, including their structure, jurisdiction, procedures and working methods, having particular regard to • the cost of litigation to parties and to the public purse; • the role of mediation and other methods of dispute resolution in relation to court process; • the development of modern methods of communication and case management; and • the issue of specialisation of courts or procedures, including the relationship between the civil and criminal courts; and to report within 2 years, making recommendations for changes with a view to improving access to civil justice in Scotland, promoting early resolution of disputes, making the best use of resources, and ensuring that cases are dealt with in ways which are proportionate to the value, importance and complexity of the issues raised. Background to the Review 1.3 The Scottish Executive’s report ‘Modern Laws for a Modern Scotland’,1 published on 12 February 2007, explained the background to the decision to embark upon the review and set out the key issues which the Review was expected to address and the principles which the Executive considered should underpin its work. 1.4 The Executive had supported the Scottish Consumer Council’s initiative, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, to examine the case for and against a review of civil justice in Scotland and to make suggestions for change. The Scottish Consumer Council appointed a Civil Justice Advisory Group (CJAG) chaired by the Rt Hon Lord Coulsfield, which held a series of six seminars between September 2004 and April 2005. The CJAG published a report in November 2005,2 which called on the Executive to establish a review of several important aspects of the civil justice system in Scotland and identified key issues that such a review should address. 1 Scottish Executive (2007), Modern Laws for a Modern Scotland: A Report on Civil Justice in Scotland. 2 Scottish Consumer Council (2005), The Civil Justice System in Scotland: a case for review? The final report from the Civil Justice Advisory Group. 1 1.5 In early 2006, the Executive held a number of meetings with a broad range of stakeholder interests to discuss the conclusions of the CJAG report. A debate on civil justice reform took place in the Scottish Parliament on 20 April 2006, in which there was a clear consensus that disproportionate costs and unacceptable delays should be addressed. At that debate the Executive announced its intention to establish a judicially-led “root and branch” review of the civil courts.3 The Lord Justice Clerk, the Rt Hon Lord Gill, was invited to lead the Review, with the above remit. The Review Board, the Policy Group and the Review Team 1.6 The Review began its work in April 2007, when Lord Gill was joined by the Hon Lord McEwan, Sheriff Principal James Taylor and Sheriff Mhairi Stephen on the Project Board. The Board is assisted by a Policy Group comprising individuals with particular knowledge and expertise in various aspects of civil justice, and is provided with administrative and research support by a Review Team.4 1.7 In recognition of the importance of the Review being as well informed as possible about what and where the problems are, a general call was issued in May 2007, via a press release and on the Review’s website, http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/civilcourtsreview/index.asp, for views about the topics covered by the remit and any other matters within its scope that people considered the Review should take into account. Views from anyone with an interest were welcomed and a number of submissions were received via the website and its associated email address, [email protected]. In addition a number of people and organisations were contacted by letter and asked about issues relating to the civil courts which are of concern to them. Around 40 submissions have been received to date, from a range of people and organisations, including judges, legal practitioners, voluntary organisations, and individual court users. Many of these contributions are extremely detailed and thoughtful and the Review is grateful for the time and effort that contributors have given. All the contributions have been useful in informing consideration of the matters which will require to be addressed. While this paper does not discuss in detail all the points that have been drawn to the Review’s attention, it reflects the main themes and topics of concern that have been raised so far. Key issues 1.8 The remit sets out the areas the Review is expected to examine and the outcomes its recommendations should be designed to achieve. The remit is related to the four key issues identified in the Scottish Executive’s report ‘Modern Laws for a Modern Scotland’ as being most urgently in need of attention. These four issues, which were highlighted by the CJAG report, are: 3 Scottish Parliament, Official Report, 20 April 2006, col 24856. http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-06/sor0420- 02.htm#Col24853. 4 Further information about the membership of the Policy Group and the Review Team is provided in Annex A. 2 (a) the disproportionate cost of litigation, particularly in relation to cases of low monetary value; (b) balancing the demands of civil and criminal business; (c) specialisation; and (d) case management. The remit also refers to the role of mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution and to the development of modern methods of communication. 1.9 The Review’s primary purpose is to improve access to justice for the people of Scotland. An effective and efficient civil justice system is a vital component of a civilised and prosperous society. A good civil justice system must provide citizens with high quality advice, information and assistance, at a price they can afford, to help them avoid civil legal problems arising, to provide means to help to resolve problems satisfactorily when they do arise, and to ensure that citizens’ civil rights and responsibilities are protected and enforced when necessary. The system will be failing if the civil courts are seen as remote and inaccessible, if people are inhibited from pursuing or defending valid claims because they cannot afford the assistance they need to enable them to do so, or if the procedures and language the courts use create confusion in the minds of the general public. These are all issues which the Review will address.
Recommended publications
  • 2 Legal System of Scotland

    2 Legal System of Scotland

    Legal System of 2 Scotland Yvonne McLaren and Josephine Bisacre This chapter discusses the formal sources of Scots law – answering the question of where the law gets its binding authority from. The chapter considers the role played by human rights in the Scottish legal system and their importance both for individuals and for businesses. While most com- mercial contracts are fulfilled and do not end up in court, some do, and sometimes businesses are sued for negligence, and they may also fall foul of the criminal law. Therefore the latter part of the chapter discusses the civil and criminal courts of Scotland and the personnel that work in the justice system. The Scottish legal system is also set in its UK and European context, and the chapter links closely with Chapters 3 and 4, where two rather dif- ferent legal systems – those in Dubai and Malaysia – are explored, in order to provide some international comparisons. The formal sources of Scots Law: from where does the law derive its authority? What is the law and why should we obey it? These are important ques- tions. Rules come in many different guises. There are legal rules and other rules that may appear similar in that they invoke a sense of obligation, such as religious rules, ethical or moral rules, and social rules. People live by religious or moral codes and consider themselves bound by them. People honour social engagements because personal relationships depend on this. However, legal rules are different in that the authority of the state is behind them and if they are not honoured, ultimately the state will step in 20 Commercial Law in a Global Context and enforce them, in the form of civil remedies such as damages, or state- sanctioned punishment for breach of the criminal law.
  • Part 39 Civil Procedure Rules: Proposed Changes, Open Justice

    Part 39 Civil Procedure Rules: Proposed Changes, Open Justice

    Part 39 Civil Procedure Rules: proposed changes Open justice This consultation begins on 12/07/18 This consultation ends on 23/08/18 Part 39 Civil Procedure Rules: proposed changes Open justice A consultation produced by the Ministry of Justice. It is also available at https://consult.justice.gov.uk/ About this consultation To: The consultation is aimed at court users in England and Wales. Duration: From 12/07/18 to 23/08/18 Enquiries (including requests Civil Justice and Law Policy for the paper in an alternative Ministry of Justice format) to: 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Tel: 020 3334 3555 Email: [email protected] How to respond: Please send your response by 23/08/18 to: Civil Justice and Law Policy Ministry of Justice 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Tel: 020 3334 3555 Email: [email protected] Additional ways to feed in your N/A views: Response paper: A response to this consultation exercise is due to be published within three months of the consultation closing at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/ Part 39 CPR: Open Justice Consultation Paper Contents Foreword 3 Executive summary 5 Introduction 8 The proposals 9 Impact assessments 14 About you 15 Contact details/How to respond 16 Consultation principles 19 1 Part 39 CPR: Open Justice Consultation Paper 2 Part 39 CPR: Open Justice Consultation Paper Foreword The justice system in England and Wales is internationally recognised as one of the finest in the world; our strong and independent judiciary, world-class legal profession and our legal system are the basis of a modern society and strong economy.
  • Supreme Court of Jamaica Civil Procedure Rules 2002

    Supreme Court of Jamaica Civil Procedure Rules 2002

    SUPREME COURT OF JAMAICA CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 2002 i CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES - 20002 ii SUPREME COURT OF JAMAICA CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 2002 REVISED, AS AT SEPTEMBER 18, 2006 Published on behalf of the Government of Jamaica by The Caribbean Law Publishing Company Limited Kingston, Jamaica iii CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES - 20002 First published in Jamaica 2002 by The Caribbean Law Publishing Company 11 Cunningham Avenue PO Box 686 Kingston 6 Revised 2006 © The Government of Jamaica All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the Government of Jamaica. ISBN 976-8167-47-5 A catalogue of record of this book is available from the National Library of Jamaica Typeset by Shelly-Gail Folkes Set in Stone Informal 10pt Printed in the United States of America iv The Judicature (Rules of Court) Act [The Civil Procedure Rules 2002] In exercise of the powers conferred upon the Rules Committee of the Supreme Court by Section 4 of the Judicature (Rules of Court) Act, the following Rules are hereby made: CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES, 2002 1. These Rules may be cited as the Civil Procedure Rules, 2002, and shall come into operation, subject to the transitional provisions contained in part 73, on January 1, 2003. 2. All Rules of Court relating to the procedure in civil proceedings in the Supreme Court, save for those relating to insolvency (including winding up of Companies and bankruptcy), and matrimonial proceedings are hereby revoked.
  • Defamation and the Internet: Scoping Study

    Defamation and the Internet: Scoping Study

    Law Commission DEFAMATION AND THE INTERNET A Preliminary Investigation Scoping Study No 2 December 2002 The Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 to promote the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Toulson, Chairman Professor Hugh Beale, QC Mr Stuart Bridge Professor Martin Partington, CBE Judge Alan Wilkie, QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. The paper was completed on 8 November 2002. This preliminary investigation is the second of two scoping studies, carried out in response to a request from the Lord Chancellor dated 31 January 2002.1 Comments may be sent to: David Willink Civil Law Development Division Lord Chancellor’s Department Southside 105 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QT email: [email protected] It would be helpful if, where possible, comments could be sent by email or email attachment, in any commonly used format. © Crown copyright 2002 1 The first study, Aspects of Defamation Procedure, was published in May 2002, and is available on the Internet at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk. THE LAW COMMISSION DEFAMATION AND THE INTERNET: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION CONTENTS Paragraph Page PART I: INTRODUCTION 1 The issues 1.4 1 ISP liability for other people’s material 1.5 1 The limitation period and online archives 1.6 2 Jurisdiction issues 1.8 2 Contempt of court 1.10 2 Summary of conclusions 1.11 2 Liability of internet service providers 1.12 2 Archives and
  • The Problem of Trans-National Libel, 60 Am

    The Problem of Trans-National Libel, 60 Am

    University of Miami Law School University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository Articles Faculty and Deans 2012 The rP oblem of Trans-National Libel Lili Levi University of Miami School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/fac_articles Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, and the Jurisdiction Commons Recommended Citation Lili Levi, The Problem of Trans-National Libel, 60 Am. J. Comp. L. 507 (2012). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty and Deans at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LILI LEVI* The Problem of Trans-National Libelt Forum shopping in trans-nationallibel cases-"libel tourism"- has a chilling effect on journalism, academic scholarship,and scien- tific criticism. The United States and Britain (the most popular venue for such cases) have recently attempted to address the issue legisla- tively. In 2010, the United States passed the SPEECH Act, which prohibits recognition and enforcement of libel judgments from juris- dictions applying law less speech-protective than the First Amendment. In Britain, consultation has closed and the Parliamen- tary Joint Committee has issued its report on a broad-ranginglibel reform bill proposed by the Government in March 2011. This Article questions the extent to which the SPEECH Act and the Draft Defama- tion Bill will accomplish their stated aims.
  • Foi-17-02802

    Foi-17-02802

    Annex B Deputy First Minister’s briefing for James Wolffe meeting on 3 March 2016: Meeting with James Wolffe QC, Dean of Faculty of Advocates 14:30, 3 March 2016 Key message Support efforts to improve the societal contribution made by the courts. In particular the contribution to growing the economy Who James Wolffe QC, Dean of Faculty of Advocates What Informal meeting, principally to listen to the Dean’s views and suggestions Where Parliament When Date Thursday 3 March 2016 Time 14:30 pm Supporting Private Office indicated no officials required officials Briefing and No formal agenda agenda Annex A: Background on Faculty and biography of Mr Wolffe Annex B: Key lines Annex C: Background issues Copy to: Cabinet Secretary for Justice Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs DG Learning and Justice DG Enterprise, Environment and Innovation Neil Rennick, Director Justice Jan Marshall [REDACTED] Nicola Wisdahl Cameron Stewart [REDACTED] John McFarlane, Special Adviser Communications Safer & Stronger St Andrew’s House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH1 3DG www.scotland.gov.uk MEETING WITH JAMES WOLFFE QC ANNEX A Background The Faculty of Advocates is an independent body of lawyers who have been admitted to practise as Advocates before the Courts of Scotland. The Faculty has been in existence since 1532 when the College of Justice was set up by Act of the Scots Parliament, but its origins are believed to predate that event. It is self- regulating, and the Court delegates to the Faculty the task of preparing Intrants for admission as Advocates. This task involves a process of examination and practical instruction known as devilling, during which Intrants benefit from intensive structured training in the special skills of advocacy.
  • Scotland and the UK Constitution

    Scotland and the UK Constitution

    Scotland and the UK Constitution The 1998 devolution acts brought about the most significant change in the constitution of the United Kingdom since at least the passage of the 1972 European Communities Act. Under those statutes devolved legislatures and administrations were created in Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. The documents below have been selected to give an overview of the constitutional settlement established by the devolution acts and by the Courts. Scotland has been chosen as a case study for this examination, both because the Scottish Parliament has been granted the most extensive range of powers and legislative competences of the three devolved areas, but also because the ongoing debate on Scottish independence means that the powers and competencies of the Scottish Parliament are very much live questions. The devolution of certain legislative and political powers to Scotland was effected by the Scotland Act 1998. That statute, enacted by the Westminster Parliament, creates the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive (now the “Scottish Government”), and establishes the limits on the Parliament’s legislative competence. Schedule 5 of the Act, interpolated by Section 30(1), lists those powers which are reserved to the Westminster Parliament, and delegates all other matters to the devolved organs. Thus, while constitutional matters, foreign affairs, and national defence are explicitly reserved to Westminster, all matters not listed— including the education system, the health service, the legal system, environmental
  • The New Civil Procedure Rules First Report

    The New Civil Procedure Rules First Report

    The New Civil Procedure Rules First Report May 2017 Contents Foreword ........................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 3 Background to the rules rewrite project.............................................................................. 3 The Acts ........................................................................................................................ 3 The Rules Rewrite Working Group ................................................................................. 4 The Rules Rewrite Drafting Team and implementation of the 2014 Act .......................... 5 The Rules Rewrite Project ................................................................................................. 6 The scope of the project ................................................................................................. 6 Matters out with the scope of the project ........................................................................ 8 Purpose of this report ........................................................................................................ 9 Discussion papers .......................................................................................................... 9 Engagement with the public and the professions ......................................................... 10 Chapter 2. A statement of principle .............................................................................
  • SOME OLD-TIME SCOTCH JUDGES. the Law Courts of Scotland Have

    SOME OLD-TIME SCOTCH JUDGES. the Law Courts of Scotland Have

    SOME OLD-TIME SCOTCH JUDGES. The Law Courts of Scotland have been as famous for the person- alities of their Judges as for the quality of the law propounded and decreed therein, and few public institutions of ancient lineage have numbered among their members so many persons of marked character and individuality as the Court of Session in Edinburgh. In Scotland individual eccentricity has never been a barrier to merit and ability in the race for fame ; on the contrary, it has often been a powerful asset, and the records of her politics and public life teem with the personal eccentricities and outstanding peculiarities of her most distinguished citizens . The Court of Session, by which term the Law Courts of Scotland are described, has held since the date of the Union of the Crowns in 17'07 and still holds, a position of peculiar dignity. Mem- bers of Parliament and the higher Civil ;Servants have had by force of circumstances their residence in London,. and accordingly for two centuries the Law Courts have been left seised of the highest social position available in the world of Edinburgh, "mine own romantic town," as Sir Walter Scott loved to call it. As a result a Lord of Session has had a special prominence in . Scotland which none save a Peer of the Realm could dispute. They not only moulded the legal traditions of the country and by their de- cision affected the tone of its administration, but their influence upon its social life has been remarkable . In their roll are to be found some unworthy and commonplace names, but many of them are well worthy of resurrection from the vaults of local history to the day- light of the present generation.
  • British Institute of International and Comparative Law

    British Institute of International and Comparative Law

    BRITISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW PROJECT REFERENCE: JLS/2006/FPC/21 – 30-CE-00914760055 THE EFFECT IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS: RECOGNITION, RES JUDICATA AND ABUSE OF PROCESS Project Advisory Board: The Rt Hon Sir Francis Jacobs KCMG QC (chair); Lord Mance; Mr David Anderson QC; Dr Peter Barnett; Mr Peter Beaton; Professor Adrian Briggs; Professor Burkhard Hess; Mr Adam Johnson; Mr Alex Layton QC; Professor Paul Oberhammer; Professor Rolf Stürner; Ms Mona Vaswani; Professor Rhonda Wasserman Project National Rapporteurs: Mr Peter Beaton (Scotland); Professor Alegría Borrás (Spain); Mr Andrew Dickinson (England and Wales); Mr Javier Areste Gonzalez (Spain – Assistant Rapporteur); Mr Christian Heinze (Germany); Professor Lars Heuman (Sweden); Mr Urs Hoffmann-Nowotny (Switzerland – Assistant Rapporteur); Professor Emmanuel Jeuland (France); Professor Paul Oberhammer (Switzerland); Mr Jonas Olsson (Sweden – Assistant Rapporteur); Mr Mikael Pauli (Sweden – Assistant Rapporteur); Dr Norel Rosner (Romania); Ms Justine Stefanelli (United States); Mr Jacob van de Velden (Netherlands) Project Director: Jacob van de Velden Project Research Fellow: Justine Stefanelli Project Consultant: Andrew Dickinson Project Research Assistants: Elina Konstantinidou and Daniel Vasbeck 1 QUESTIONNAIRE The Effect in the European Community of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters: Recognition, Res Judicata and Abuse of Process Instructions to National Rapporteurs Please use the following questions to describe the current position in the country for which you have been appointed as National Rapporteur. Please respond to the following questions as fully as possible, with appropriate reference to, and quotation of, supporting authority (e.g. case law and, where appropriate, the views of legal writers).
  • Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland (Amendment) Bill Committee

    Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland (Amendment) Bill Committee

    Published 15 January 2020 SP Paper 657 1st Report, 2020 (Session 5) Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland (Amendment) Bill Committee Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland (Amendment) Bill Committee - Preliminary Stage Report Published in Scotland by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. All documents are available on the Scottish For information on the Scottish Parliament contact Parliament website at: Public Information on: http://www.parliament.scot/abouttheparliament/ Telephone: 0131 348 5000 91279.aspx Textphone: 0800 092 7100 Email: [email protected] © Parliamentary copyright. Scottish Parliament Corporate Body The Scottish Parliament's copyright policy can be found on the website — www.parliament.scot Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland (Amendment) Bill Committee Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland (Amendment) Bill Committee - Preliminary Stage Report, 1st Report, 2020 (Session 5) Contents Introduction ____________________________________________________________1 Objectives of the Bill _____________________________________________________2 Background to the Bill ___________________________________________________3 History _______________________________________________________________3 Current situation________________________________________________________3 The need for change ____________________________________________________4 Parliamentary Procedure _________________________________________________6 Private Bill Procedure ___________________________________________________6 Role of
  • [2013] JMCA App 17 JAMAICA in the COURT of APPEAL SUPREME

    [2013] JMCA App 17 JAMAICA in the COURT of APPEAL SUPREME

    [2013] JMCA App 17 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 141/2010 APPLICATION NO 197/2012 BEFORE: THE HON MRS JUSTICE HARRIS JA THE HON MR JUSTICE DUKHARAN JA THE HON MISS JUSTICE PHILLIPS JA BETWEEN DARRION BROWN APPLICANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF JAMAICA 1ST RESPONDENT AND SPECIAL CORPORAL #154 PAUL THOMPSON 2ND RESPONDENT AND SPECIAL CORPORAL # 96 MIGUEL LYLE 3RD RESPONDENT AND DETECTIVE CORPORAL JOSEPH WILSON 4 th RESPONDENT Mrs Jacqueline Samuels-Brown QC and Miss Roxann Mars instructed by Knight Junor Samuels for the applicant Miss Lisa White and Dale Austin instructed by the Director of State Proceedings for the respondents 27 and 28 September 2012 and 2 July 2013 HARRIS JA [1] I have read in draft the judgment of my sister Phillips JA. I agree with her reasoning and conclusion and have nothing to add. DUKHARAN JA [2] I too have read in draft the judgment of Phillips JA and agree with her reasoning and conclusion. PHILLIPS JA [3] This is an application for leave to adduce as fresh evidence on appeal evidence from the personnel at the Kingston Public Hospital relative to the condition in which the applicant was kept while there, with particular reference to his being handcuffed throughout his entire hospitalization, and on his discharge being escorted by police officers to Central Police Station. [4] The appeal is from the decision of Brooks J (as he then was), who on 17 November 2010 dismissed a claim brought by the applicant for damages for assault, battery, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution with costs to the respondents to be taxed if not agreed.