DOCSLIB.ORG

FINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION in the SCOTTISH LEGAL SYSTEM Crown Copyright 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION in the SCOTTISH LEGAL SYSTEM Crown Copyright 2010 FINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN THE SCOTTISH LEGAL SYSTEM Crown Copyright 2010 ISBN: 978-0-7559-8213-4 Further copies are available from Eli do Rego The Scottish Government Legal System Division 2nd Floor West St Andrew’s House Edinburgh EH1 3DG 0131 244 3839 [email protected] An electronic copy of the full report including appendices is available at www.scotland.gov.uk PROFESSOR NEIL WALKER RR Donnelley B63059 01/2010 Regius Professor of Public Law and the Law of Nature and Nations www.scotland.gov.uk School of Law, Edinburgh University FINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN THE SCOTTISH LEGAL SYSTEM PROFESSOR NEIL WALKER Regius Professor of Public Law and the Law of Nature and Nations School of Law, Edinburgh University © Crown copyright 2010 ISBN: 978-0-7559-8213-4 Further copies of the report can be obtained from: Eli do Rego The Scottish Government Legal System Division 2nd Floor West St Andrew’s House Edinburgh EH1 3DG 0131 244 3839 [email protected] An electronic copy of the full report including appendices is available at www.scotland.gov.uk/publications RR Donnelley B63059 01/10 The text pages of this document are printed on recycled paper and are 100% recyclable Acknowledgements I have many people to thank for their help in the preparation of this report. First of all, there are the various judges, advocates, solicitors, civil servants, academics and others who generously gave of their valuable time to share their thoughts with me on the future of appellate jurisdiction in Scotland. As these exchanges took place under conditions of anonymity I cannot convey my thanks to all of these persons individually, but I want to record my gratitude to each and every one of them for their expertise and insight. On the administrative side, warm thanks are due to Lachlan Stuart of the Courts and Administrative Justice Team in the Scottish Government's Constitution, Law and Courts Directorate for his invaluable assistance. On the academic side, I was in the very fortunate position of being able to draw upon the wise counsel of a small Steering Group made up of Sir David Edward, David Johnston QC and Professor Tom Mullen. They read numerous drafts, often at extremely short notice, and provided just the right mix of critical insight and encouragement at our regular meetings. I greatly appreciate their constant and selfless support. Dr Elisenda Casanas Adam of the Universitat Autònoma di Barcelona drew upon her considerable expertise in matters of ‘judicial federalism’ to make an important contribution to the comparative dimension of the research, for which I am also very grateful. Last, but certainly not least, I wish to convey my enormous gratitude to Dr Daniel Carr of the Law School of the University of Dundee, who has worked tirelessly on this project with me over the last year. I could not have asked for a better research assistant or a more engaging intellectual collaborator. He takes full credit for the Appendices, and whatever is of value in the report itself is due in no small part to his sterling efforts. Neil Walker Old College January 2010 2 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 5 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION REMIT, CONTEXT AND PLAN OF REVIEW...................................................... 9 1.1 REMIT.............................................................................................................................................................9 1.2 CONTEXT.........................................................................................................................................................9 1.2.1 The Immediate Context........................................................................................................................ 9 1.2.2 The Fuller Historical Background........................................................................................................10 1.3 PLAN OF REVIEW ............................................................................................................................................12 CHAPTER TWO: THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT........................................................................................ 13 2.1 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................13 2.2 THE UNION STATE...........................................................................................................................................13 2.3 EVOLVED RATHER THAN DESIGNED .....................................................................................................................15 2.4 PROVISIONAL RATHER THAN FINAL......................................................................................................................16 2.5 ASYMMETRICAL RATHER THAN SYMMETRICAL .......................................................................................................17 2.6 DEEP DIVERSITY AND FORMAL DIVERGENCE .........................................................................................................18 2.7 CLOSE INTERMESHING AND SUBSTANTIVE CONVERGENCE .......................................................................................19 CHAPTER THREE: THE DEVELOPMENT OF FINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.................................................. 21 3.1 THE TERMS OF THE UNION SETTLEMENT..............................................................................................................21 3.2 THE DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL APPEALS...................................................................................22 3.3 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION AND THE RELATIVE AUTONOMY OF SCOTS LAW ............................................................23 3.4 DEVOLUTION ISSUES: THE BIRTH OF A CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION ......................................................................25 3.5 OVERVIEW OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM...................................................................................................................27 3.5.1 Final appeal in London: appeals to the Supreme Court......................................................................27 3.5.1.1 Civil appellate jurisdiction............................................................................................................................27 3.5.1.2 Devolution Issues .........................................................................................................................................31 3.5.2 Final appeal in Scotland .....................................................................................................................32 3.5.2.1 Appeals to the Court of Session ...................................................................................................................32 3.5.2.2 Appeals to the High Court of Justiciary ........................................................................................................32 CHAPTER FOUR: COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES .......................................................................................... 34 4.1 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................34 4.2 THE VERTICAL AXIS; DECENTRALISATION AND JURISDICTIONAL AUTONOMY..................................................................35 3 4.3 THE HORIZONTAL AXIS; THE SCOPE AND DIVISION OF JURISDICTION FOR A TOP COURT ...................................................41 4.4 CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................................47 CHAPTER FIVE: THE EVALUATION OF FINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ........................................................ 48 5.1 CRITERIA OF EVALUATION .................................................................................................................................48 5.2 DEMOCRACY ..................................................................................................................................................49 5.3 FAIR TREATMENT ............................................................................................................................................53 5.4 COHERENCE AND INTEGRITY ..............................................................................................................................55 5.5 RICHNESS OF RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................................57 5.6 EXPERTISE......................................................................................................................................................59 5.7 DETACHMENT.................................................................................................................................................60 5.8 OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS ...........................................................................................................................60 5.9 ECONOMY .....................................................................................................................................................61 5.10 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................................62
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 Legal Terms Used in Scottish Court Procedure, Neil Kelly Partner
    Legal Terms Used in Scottish Court Procedure, Neil Kelly Partner, MacRoberts Many recent reported adjudication decisions have come from the Scottish Courts. Therefore, as part of the case notes update, we have included a brief explanation of some of the Scottish Court procedures. There are noted below certain legal terms used in Scottish Court Procedure with a brief explanation of them. This is done in an attempt to give some readers a better understanding of some of the terms used in the Scottish cases highlighted on this web-site. 1. Action: Legal proceedings before a Court in Scotland initiated by Initial Writ or Summons. 2. Adjustment (of Pleadings): The process by which a party changes its written pleadings during the period allowed by the Court for adjustment. 3. Amendment (of Pleadings): The process by which a party changes its written pleadings after the period for adjustment has expired. Amendment requires leave of the Court. 4. Appeal to Sheriff Principal: In certain circumstances an appeal may be taken from a decision of a Sheriff to the Sheriff Principal. In some cases leave of the Sheriff is required. 5. Appeal to Court of Session: In certain circumstances an appeal may be taken from a decision of a Sheriff directly to the Court of Session or from a decision of the Sheriff Principal to the Court of Session. Such an appeal may require leave of the Sheriff or Sheriff Principal who pronounced the decision. Such an appeal will be heard by the Inner House of the Court of Session. 6. Arrestment: The process of diligence under which a Pursuer (or Defender in a counterclaim) can obtain security for a claim by freezing moveable (personal) property of the debtor in the hands of third parties e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition and Summons Procedure
    Annex A The New Civil Procedure Rules – First Report Petition and Summons Procedure Discussion paper for the Rules Rewrite Committee of the Scottish Civil Justice Council Dr. Stephen Thomson 14th December 2016 1 Annex A The New Civil Procedure Rules – First Report Discussion Paper on Petition and Summons Procedure Structure of Paper 1. Research specification 3 2. Historical, legal and principled basis for the distinction 4 2.1 Overview 4 2.2 Determination of whether to commence process by petition or summons 10 2.3 Testing the distinction between the petition and summons 14 a. Petition is usually an ex parte form of originating non-contentious or non-adversarial process 15 b. Petition involves the discretionary exercise of statutory or common law powers as distinct from the application of rules of law 18 3. Difficulties caused by the distinction in present practice 28 4. Difficulties likely to be presented by the removal of the distinction 32 4.1 Risk of replacing one two-tier process with another 32 4.2 Ensuring the continued possibility of ex parte applications 36 4.3 Retaining flexibility/brevity in appropriate cases 36 4.4 Retaining the relative speed and cheapness of abbreviated/expedited process 38 5. Other jurisdictions 39 5.1 England and Wales 39 5.2 Australia 41 a. New South Wales 41 b. Victoria 43 5.3 New Zealand 44 5.4 Canada 47 a. Ontario 47 b. British Columbia 49 c. Alberta 50 6. Conclusion 51 2 Annex A The New Civil Procedure Rules – First Report 1. Research Specification I have been asked by the Rules Rewrite Committee (the “Committee”) of the Scottish Civil Justice Council (the “SCJC”), to provide historical and principled academic analysis in relation to questions arising from the proposal to merge petition and summons procedure.
    [Show full text]
  • Outer House, Court of Session
    OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION [2018] CSOH 61 P1293/17 OPINION OF LORD BOYD OF DUNCANSBY in the Petition of ANDREW WIGHTMAN MSP AND OTHERS Petitioners TOM BRAKE MP AND CHRIS LESLIE MP, Additional Parties for Judicial Review against SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION Respondents Petitioners: O’Neill QC, Welsh; Balfour + Manson LLP Additional Parties: M Ross QC; Harper Macleod LLP Respondents: Johnston QC, Webster; Office of the Advocate General 8 June 2018 Introduction [1] On 23 June 2016 the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Following the Supreme Court case of Miller (R (Miller and another) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2018] AC 61) the United Kingdom Parliament enacted the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 authorising the Prime Minister to notify under article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) the UK’s intention to 2 withdraw from the European Union. On 29 March 2017 the Prime Minister, in a letter addressed to the European Council (EC), gave notice under article 50(2) of the TEU (the “article 50 notification”) of the UK’s intention to withdraw. [2] Can that notice be unilaterally revoked by the UK acting in good faith such that the United Kingdom could continue to be a member of the European Union after 29 March 2019 on the same terms and conditions as it presently enjoys? That is the question which the petitioners and the additional parties wish answered. [3] All but one of the petitioners is an elected representative.
    [Show full text]
  • Recognition of the Khojaly Genocide at the ICO
    Administrative Department of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan P R E S I D E N T I A L L I B R A R Y ────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Recognition of the Genocide of Khojaly The member of the US California Assembly recognizes Khojaly Massacre (March 25, 2009) ............................................................................................................................................... 4 The recognition of the Khojaly Genocide at the ICO ............................................................... 5 Massachusetts State of the United States recognizes Khojaly tragedy as a massacre (February 25, 2010) ...................................................................................................................... 7 Recognition of the Khojaly genocide by Pakistan ..................................................................... 8 Recognition of the Khojaly massacre in Mexico ........................................................................ 9 The resolution adopted by the Senate of Mexico (October 27, 2011) .................................... 10 The resolution adopted by the Chamber of Deputies of Mexico (November 30, 2011) ....... 13 Khojaly to be recognized as Genocide in International level: representatives of the Parliaments of 51 States adopts the relevant resolution (January 31, 2012) ........................ 18 Texas House of Representatives passes resolution on Khojaly genocide (February 21, 2012) .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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 .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Stetson-Lawyer-Volume-46-Number-2.Pdf
    VOLUME 46, NUMBER 2 STETSON FALL 2006 The Magazine of Stetson University Lawyery College of Law Practicing in-house Alumni share career experiences as counsel at major corporations Justice after the storm New Orleans leaders discuss the legal aftermath at Stetson conference Crossing bridges Civil rights history students follow the footsteps of the Freedom Riders Hall of Fame Meet the 2006 recipients of Stetson Law’s highest honor Katrina Lindsey ’99, Walt Disney Co. LawyerSTETSON VOLUME 46, NUMBER 2 FALL 2006 STETSON UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW Darby Dickerson Vice President and Dean Theresa Pulley Radwan Associate Dean of Academics John Cooper Associate Dean, International and Cooperative Programs Ellen S. Podgor Associate Dean of Faculty Development and Distance Education Nancy Kelsey Assistant Dean of Academic Records and Registrar Karen Griffin Interim Director of College Relations Aleksandra Jagiella ’04 Alumni Relations Coordinator EDITORS Davina Y. Gould The Docket Editor and Associate Director of Communications Frank Klim Executive Director of Communications DECEMBER 2006 FEBRUARY 2007 1 5th Annual Mad Hatter Golf Classic spon- 2 Equal Justice Works Auction sored by Carlton Fields, Westchase Golf CONTRIBUTORS/PHOTOGRAPHERS 9 Judge Stringer Youth Day, Gulfport Campus Robert D. Bickel Course, Tampa 17-21 CLE: National Conference on Law and 7-9 CLE: 31st Annual Conference on Bankruptcy Brooke J. Bowman ’02 Higher Education, Sheraton Sand Key Resort, Law and Practice, Sheraton Sand Key Resort, Peter L. Fitzgerald Clearwater Beach Clearwater Beach Trudy Futch 13 Alumni Holiday Open House, 5:30-7:30 p.m., Ana Garcia Mann Lounge, Gulfport Campus Tyler Branch Hickey MARCH 2007 15 Fall Honors and Awards Ceremony, Great 3 SBA Barristers Ball Karla Jones Hall, Gulfport Campus Brandi Palmer 31 Admitted Law Students Day, Gulfport Campus 16 Fall Commencement Ceremony and Aaron Reincheld Reception, 2 p.m., Courtyard, Gulfport Campus C.J.
    [Show full text]
  • 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).
    [Show full text]
  • The Strange Revival of Bicameralism
    The Strange Revival of Bicameralism Coakley, J. (2014). The Strange Revival of Bicameralism. Journal of Legislative Studies, 20(4), 542-572. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2014.926168 Published in: Journal of Legislative Studies Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal: Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal Publisher rights © 2014 Taylor & Francis. This work is made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made to ensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in the Research Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact [email protected]. Download date:01. Oct. 2021 Published in Journal of Legislative Studies , 20 (4) 2014, pp. 542-572; doi: 10.1080/13572334.2014.926168 THE STRANGE REVIVAL OF BICAMERALISM John Coakley School of Politics and International Relations University College Dublin School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy Queen’s University Belfast [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT The turn of the twenty-first century witnessed a surprising reversal of the long-observed trend towards the disappearance of second chambers in unitary states, with 25 countries— all but one of them unitary—adopting the bicameral system.
    [Show full text]
  • United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill [AS PASSED]
    United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill [AS PASSED] CONTENTS Section PART 1 THE UNCRC REQUIREMENTS Meaning of “the UNCRC requirements” and related expressions 1 Meaning of “the UNCRC requirements” and related expressions 2 Meaning of references to States Parties and related expressions in the UNCRC requirements 3 Power to modify the schedule Interpretation of the UNCRC requirements 4 Interpretation of the UNCRC requirements 5 Duty to modify section 4 on ratification of the third optional protocol to the Convention PART 2 DUTIES ON PUBLIC AUTHORITIES Acts of public authorities to be compatible with the UNCRC requirements 6 Acts of public authorities to be compatible with the UNCRC requirements Remedies for unlawful acts 7 Proceedings for unlawful acts 8 Judicial remedies 8A Child’s view on effectiveness of reliefs etc. 9 Restriction on proceedings in respect of judicial acts Power for Commissioner to bring or intervene in proceedings 10 Power for Commissioner to bring or intervene in proceedings Power for Scottish Commission for Human Rights to bring or intervene in proceedings 10A Power for Scottish Commission for Human Rights to bring or intervene in proceedings Guidance on this Part 10B Guidance on this Part SP Bill 80B Session 5 (2021) ii United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill PART 3 CHILDREN’S RIGHTS SCHEME, CHILD RIGHTS AND WELLBEING IMPACT ASSESSMENTS AND REPORTING DUTIES Children’s Rights Scheme 11 Children’s Rights Scheme 12 Procedure for
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter | | Autumn 2014
    | The University of Edinburgh Law School Newsletter | www.law.ed.ac.uk | Autumn 2014 Newsletter | Autumn 2014 | 1789 – 2014 Join us to celebrate 225 years of Old College More details inside! Old College, 1900. Courtesy Digital Imaging Unit, Edinburgh University Library Also in this issue | New Head of School | Class of the 1980s | A Week with George Gretton | | Page 2 | The University of Edinburgh Law School Newsletter | www.law.ed.ac.uk | Autumn 2014 | Welcome from our New Head of School – Richard Sparks I am really honoured to take up the post of Head of School, and particularly delighted to extend a warm welcome to our alumni. We hope to see many of you in November when we celebrate 225 years of Old College (see page 6 for more details). This is an exciting time, with work starting on our redevelopment in the New Year. Alas, ambitious refurbishment does not come without some practical inconvenience and I am full of praise for our support staff who are working so hard to ensure life for our current students and academic staff will not be disrupted by the building work. I am confident that we can minimize those disruptions and continue to develop and thrive as a School. I am really grateful to all concerned for making it so. I also want to take this opportunity to welcome our new academic staff this semester. Dr Paolo Cavaliere joins us as the new Lecturer in Digital Media/IT Law. Paolo joins us from the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies at the University of Oxford.
    [Show full text]
  • Fair Use and File Sharing in Research and Education
    University of Southampton Research Repository ePrints Soton Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder/s. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given e.g. AUTHOR (year of submission) "Full thesis title", University of Southampton, name of the University School or Department, PhD Thesis, pagination http://eprints.soton.ac.uk UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON FACULTY OF LAW, ARTS & SOCIAL SCIENCES School of Law Fair Use and File Sharing in Research and Education by Yueyue Wang Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy March 2009 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON ABSTRACT FACULTY OF LAW, ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES SCHOOL OF LAW Doctor of Philosophy FAIR USE AND FILE SHARING IN RESEARCH AND EDUCATION by Yueyue Wang This work was inspired by the well-ventilated current problems around the use of digital file sharing technologies and their promotion of infringement of copyright leading to the alleged destruction of entertainment industries. Different legal systems have applied different analyses to such problems, and there is no clear and coherent answer to the question of whether file sharing, especially in the form of peer-to-peer (P2P), is legal.
    [Show full text]
  • Papers Will Be Uploaded in Due Course
    THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH BUSINESS FOR MEETING OF THE UNIVERSITY COURT to be held in the Raeburn Room, Old College on Monday, 9 December 2013 at 2.00 p.m. A buffet lunch will be available at 1.00 p.m. in the Lord Provost Elder Room, Old College This meeting of Court will be preceded by a presentation on the Research Excellence Framework (REF2014) delivered by Mrs Tracey Slaven, Deputy Secretary, Strategic Planning. A FORMAL BUSINESS 1. Minute of the meeting held on 4 November 2013 A1 2. Senate Assessor A2 B PRINCIPAL'S BUSINESS 1. Principal’s Communications B1 2. Vice-Principal update B2 C SUBSTANTIVE ITEMS 1. Report of the Finance and General Purposes Committee .1 Comments on the Report of the Central Management Group C1.1 .2 Report on Other Items C1.2 2. EUSA President’s Report C2 3. Risk Management Committee year end report C3 4. Risk Management – post year end Assurance Statement C4 5. Audit Committee Annual Report C5 6. Reports and Financial Statements .1 Annual Report and Accounts for year ended 31 July 2013 C6.1 .2 Letter of Representation C6.2 .3 Review of 2012/2013 Outturn versus Forecast C6.3 7. 2014-2017 Draft Outcome Agreement C7 8. Strategic Plan: Targets and KPIs Progress Report C8 9. Annual Review 2012-2013 C9 10. Report from Remuneration Committee C10 11. Report from Knowledge Strategy Committee C11 D ITEMS FOR FORMAL APPROVAL OR NOTE 1. Draft Resolutions D1 2. Risk Management Committee – Terms of Reference D2 3. Donations and Legacies D3 4.
    [Show full text]