Download and Read online, DOWNLOAD EBOOK, [PDF EBOOK EPUB ], Ebooks

download, Read Ebook EPUB/KINDE, Download Book Format PDF

Studying Scots Law 5th Edition Megan Dewart

OR CLICK LINK
https://textbookfull.com/product/studying-scots-
law-5th-edition-megan-dewart/

Read with Our Free App Audiobook Free Format PFD EBook, Ebooks dowload PDF
with Andible trial, Real book, online, KINDLE , Download[PDF] and Read and Read
Read book Format PDF Ebook, Dowload online, Read book Format PDF Ebook,
[PDF] and Real ONLINE Dowload [PDF] and Real ONLINE
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Introduction to Kinesiology 5th Edition With Web Study

Guide Studying Physical Activity Shirl Hoffman

https://textbookfull.com/product/introduction-to-kinesiology-5th-
edition-with-web-study-guide-studying-physical-activity-shirl-
hoffman/

Law and Society 5th Edition Steven Vago

https://textbookfull.com/product/law-and-society-5th-edition-
steven-vago/

Law 101: Everything You Need To Know About American

Law, 5th edition Jay M. Feinman

https://textbookfull.com/product/law-101-everything-you-need-to-
know-about-american-law-5th-edition-jay-m-feinman/

Studying Mathematics Marco Bramanti

https://textbookfull.com/product/studying-mathematics-marco-
bramanti/
Private Security and the Law, 5th Edition Charles P.
Nemeth

https://textbookfull.com/product/private-security-and-the-
law-5th-edition-charles-p-nemeth/

The Lost Night 2nd Edition Megan Winters

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-lost-night-2nd-edition-
megan-winters/

A Basic Guide to International Business Law 5th Edition

Harm Wevers

https://textbookfull.com/product/a-basic-guide-to-international-
business-law-5th-edition-harm-wevers/

Studying the Novel 7th Edition Jeremy Hawthorn

https://textbookfull.com/product/studying-the-novel-7th-edition-
jeremy-hawthorn/

Studying Public Policy 4th Edition Michael Howlett

https://textbookfull.com/product/studying-public-policy-4th-
edition-michael-howlett/
Studying Scots Law
 Dedication

For Mum and Dad

Studying Scots Law

Fifth edition

Hector L MacQueen LL.B, PhD, FBA, FRSE

Scottish Law Commissioner
and
Professor of Private Law, University of Edinburgh

Edited by
Megan H Dewart LL.B, BCL (Oxon), DipLP, Solicitor
Law Clerk to the Lord President, Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service
Preface

This book is intended to help, inform and advise people wishing to pursue a career in law in
Scotland, those who are in the early stages of a course in law (whether or not they are minded to
have a career in the field), or those who have a general interest in Scottish law and its distinctive
legal system and want to learn a little more about it. Each edition since the first in 1993 has been
written at a time of great change in the legal profession, and this is true as ever in this fifth edition.
They entail changes in the structure of the legal system generally, particularly the structure of the
civil courts with the implementation of the recommendations of the Gill Review; the nature and
forms of legal education; the publication of legal materials (most notably on the Internet), and the
funding of the higher education system generally. There have also been changes in the economic
and politic landscape more broadly. The economic climate has improved for the aspiring lawyer
since the last edition of this book in 2012.
On 23 June 2016, the United Kingdom electorate voted to leave the European Union in a
referendum. How and when this will occur, and under what conditions, is at the time of writing
uncertain. What is certain is that it will have a significant impact on the development of Scots law,
and the structure of the legal system.
Finally, I am very grateful to Professor Hector MacQueen for inviting me to take over the
editing of this book. Your confidence in me is much appreciated and valued.
I have stated the position as at the end of June 2016, although subsequent events have been
taken into account where possible.
Megan Dewart
Edinburgh
10 July 2016
Contents

Dedication
Preface
Table of Statutes
Table of Statutory Instruments etc
Table of European and overseas materials
Table of Cases

Part I THE SCOTTISH LEGAL SYSTEM

1 The Law in Scotland
2 The Scottish Legal Profession

Part II ENTERING THE PROFESSION

3 Courses
4 The University Stage
5 Alternatives to the Law Degree
6 The Diploma in Professional Legal Practice
7 Professional Training
8 Continuing Legal Education

Part III STUDYING

9 Lectures, Tutorials and Seminars
10 Private Study
11 Researching the Law
12 Essays and Examinations
13 Homily and Epilogue

Appendix 1 Useful Addresses

Appendix 2 BA Degrees in Law
Appendix 3 Funding
Appendix 4 Latin Words and Phrases
Appendix 5 Books
Appendix 6 Useful Diagrams
Appendix 7 Some Useful Websites

Index
Table of statutes

Abolition of Domestic Rates etc (Scotland) Act 1987 here

Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 here
Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991 here
Colonial Solicitors Act 1900 here; here
Constitutional Reform Act 2005 here
Consumer Credit Act 1974 here; here, here; here
s 11 here
s 11(1)(b) here
s 12 here
s 12(b), (c) here
s 75 here
Pt IX (ss 127–144) here
Copyright Act 1911 here
Copyright Act 1956 here
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 here, here
s 37–44 here
Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 here
Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 here
Curators Act 1585 here
Equality Act 2010 here
European Communities Act 1972 here, here; here; here
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
Sch 7 here
Human Rights Act 1998 here, here; here; here, here; here
Insolvency Act 1986 here
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 here; here, here, here, here, here
Public Bodies and Public Appointments etc (Scotland) Act 2003 here
Road Traffic Act 1988 here
Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 here
Sale of Goods Act 1979 here
Scotland Act 1998 here, here; here, here
Sch 5 here
Scotland Act 2012 here
Scottish Local Government (Elections) Act 2002 here
Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980
s5 here
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 here
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 here; here
Union with England Act 1707 here, here, here, here
art XVIII here
artXIX here
Table of statutory instruments etc

Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1996, SI 1996/2967 here

Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003, SI 2003/2498
Sch 1
para 26 here
Copyright (Librarians and Archivists) (Copying of Copyright Material) here
Regulations 1989, SI 1989/1212
Maximum Number of Judges (Scotland) Order 1999, SSI 1999/158 here
Overseas Solicitors (Admission) Order 1964, SI 1964/1848 here
FACULTY OF ADVOCATES MATERIALS
Code of Conduct here
Guide to the Professional Conduct of Advocates here
Regulations for Intrants
reg 8 here
Table of European and Overseas Materials

CONVENTIONS AND TREATIES

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental here, here, here, here; here
Freedoms (Rome, 4 November 1950)
art 6 here
Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (Rome, 25 here; here
March 1957)
Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty here, here; here
establishing the European Community (Lisbon, 13 December 2007)
Treaty on European Union (Maastricht, 7 February 1992) here, here; here

DIRECTIVES
Directive 89/104 here
Directive 98/5/EC here

REGULATIONS
Regulation 40/94 here

OVERSEAS LEGISLATION

FRANCE
Civil Code here; here

GERMANY
Civil Code here; here
Table of Cases

A
A v Scottish Ministers [2001] UKPC D5, [2003] 2 AC 602, [2002] here
UKHRR 1, [2002] HRLR 6, 2001 SLT 1331, 2002 SC (PC) 63, 2001
GWD 33-1312
Adams v Scottish Ministers [2004] Scot CS 127, 2004 SC 665 here
Al Megrahi v HM Advocate see Megrahi v HM Advocate
Axa General Insurance v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46, 2011 SLT here
1061, [2011] 3 WLR 871

B
Booker Aquaculture Ltd (t/a Marine Harvest McConnell) v Scottish here
Ministers (Joined Cases C-20 & C-64/00) [2003] ECR I-7411
Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Germany (Case C-46/93) [1996] ECR I-1029, here
[1996] QB 404, [1996] 2 WLR 506, [1996] All ER (EC) 301, [1996]
1 CMLR 889, [1996] IRLR 267, [1996] CEC 295
Britton v Johnstone (Curator Bonis to Eileen Britton) 1996 SLT 1272, here
1992 SCLR 947
Brown v Rentokil Ltd (Case C-394/96) [1998] ECR I-4185, [1998] All here
ER (EC) 791, [1998] 2 CMLR 1049, [1998] ICR 790, [1998] IRLR
445, [1998] 2 FLR 649, [1999] 1 FCR 49, (1999) 48 BMLR 126
Burnett’s Trustee v Grainger [2004] UKHL 8, 2004 SC (HL) 19, 2004 here
SLT 513, 2004 SCLR 433

C
Cadder v Her Majesty’s Advocate [2010] UKSC 43, 2011 SC (UKSC) here; here
13, 2010 SLT 1125, 2010 SCCR 951, [2010] 1 WLR 2601
Caird v Sime (1887) 14 R (HL) 37, (1887) 12 App Cas 326, 57 LJPC 2, here
57 LT 634, 36 WR 199, 3 TLR 681
Caledonia North Sea Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd 2000 SLT here
1123, [2000] Lloyd’s Rep (IR) 249
Cameron v Hamilton’s Auction Marts Ltd 1955 SLT (Sh Ct) 74 here
Campbell & Cosans v UK Series A No 48, (1982) 4 EHRR 293 here
Cantiere San Rocco v Clyde Shipbuilding Co Ltd 1923 SC (HL) 105, here
[1924] AC 226, 93 LJPC 86, 130 LT 610
Christian Institute v Lord Advocate [2016] UKSC 51 here
Clancy v Caird 2000 SC 441, 2000 SLT 546, 2000 SCLR 526, [2000] here
HRLR 557, [2000] UKHRR 509
Cleisham v British Transport Commission 1964 SC (HL) 8, 1964 SLT 43 here
Crown Estate Commissioners v Shetland Salmon Farmers Association here
1991 SLT 166, 1990 SCLR 484

D
Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 SC (HL) 31, [1932] AC 562, [1932] All ER here; here, here, here; here; here
Rep 1101 LJPC 119, 147 LT 281, 37 Com Cas 350
Drake v Dow 2006 SCLR 456 here

F
Fraser v MacCorquodale 1992 SLT 229 here
G
Galbraith v HM Advocate (No 2) 2002 JC 1, 2001 SCCR 551, 2001 SLT here
953
Gibson v Lord Advocate 1975 SC 136, 1975 SLT 134, [1975] 1 CMLR here
563
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85, [1935] All ER Rep 209, here
105 LJPC 6, 154 LT 18, 52 TLR 38, 79 Sol Jo 815

H
H v Sweeney see X v Sweeney

I
Imperial Tobacco Ltd, Petr [2012] CSIH 9, 2012 GWD 11-200 here

J
John (Helen) v Donnelly 1999 SCCR 802, 1999 GWD 31-1463 here

K
Knight v Wedderburn (1778) Mor 14545 here

L
Law Hospital NHS Trust v Lord Advocate 1996 SC 301, 1996 SLT 848, here, here
[1996] 2 FLR 407, [1996] Fam Law 670
Lord Advocate’s Reference (No 1 of 2000) 2001 JC 143, 2001 SCCR here
296, 2001 SLT 507
Lord Advocate’s Reference (No 1 of 2001) 2002 SLT 466, 2002 SCCR here
435

M
MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396, 1953 SLT 255 here, here, here
McKie v Orr 2003 SC 317 here
McKie v Strathclyde Joint Police Board 2004 SLT 982 here
McKie v Scottish Ministers [2006] CSOH 54, 2006 SC 528 here
Mackintosh v Lord Advocate (1876) 3 R (HL) 34, (1876) 2 App Cas 41 here
McCowan v Wright (1852) 15 D 229 here
McFarlane v Tayside Health Board 2000 SC (HL) 1, [2000] 2 AC 59, here
[1999] 3 WLR 1301, [1999] 4 All ER 961, [2000] 1 FCR 102, [2000]
Lloyd’s Rep Med 1, 52 BMLR 1, (1999) 149 NLJ 1868
McLean v HM Advocate [2009] HCJAC 97, 2010 SLT 73, 2010 SCCR here
59
McMichael v UK (1995) 20 EHRR 205, [1995] 2 FCR 718, [1995] Fam here
Law 478
Manuel v HM Advocate 1958 JC 41, 1959 SLT 23 here
Megrahi v HM Advocate 2002 JC 99, 2002 SLT 1433, 2002 SCCR 509 here
Megrahi v HM Advocate 2008 SLT 1008 here
Millar v Dickson 2002 SC (PC) 30, [2002] 1 WLR 1614, 2001 SLT 988, here
2001 SCCR 741
Millars of Falkirk v Turpie 1976 SLT (Notes) 66 here
Morgan Guaranty Trust Co of New York v Lothian Regional Council here
1995 SC 151, 1995 SCLR 225
Murray v Rogers 1992 SLT 221 here

P
Percy v Church of Scotland Board of National Mission [2005] UKHL 73, here
[2006] 2 AC 28, 2006 SC (HL) 1

R
Robbie the Pict v Hingston (No 2) 1998 SLT 1201, 1998 GWD 2-89 here
Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd [1987] QB 933, [1987] 2 WLR 353, here
 [1987] 2 All ER 232, [1987] RTR 312, (1987) 6 TLR 55, (1987) 131
SJ 223, (1987) 84 LS Gaz 905
RTE v Commission (Cases C-241/91P & 242/91P) [1995] ECR I-743, here
[1995] All ER (EC) 416

S
S v HM Advocate 1989 SLT 469; sub nom Stallard v HM Advocate 1989 here
SCCR 248
SA CNL-Sucal NV v Hag Gf AG (Case C-10/89) [1990] ECR I-3711, here
[1990] 3 CMLR 571, [1991] FSR 99
Salvesen v Riddells & Lord Advocate [2012] CSIH 26, 2012 GWD 12- here
234
Scotch Whisky Association v Lord Advocate [2014] CSIH 38 here, here
Sharp v Thomson; sub nom Sharp v Woolwich Building Society 1997 SC here
(HL) 66, [1997] 1 BCLC 603, 1997 SLT 636, 1997 SCLR 328, 1997
GWD 9-364
Shetland Times Ltd v Wills 1997 SC 316, 1997 SLT 669, 1997 SCLR here
160, [1997] FSR 604, [1997] EMLR 277, (1997) 16 Tr LR 158,
[1997] Info TLR 1, [1997] Masons CLR 2, 1997 GWD 1-5
Slater v HM Advocate 1928 JC 94, 1928 SLT 602 here
Stallard v HM Advocate see S v HM Advocate
Starrs v Ruxton 2000 JC 208, 2000 SLT 42, 1999 SCCR 1052 here; here
Stewart v Secretary of State for Scotland 1998 SC (HL) 81, 1998 SLT here
385, 1998 SCLR 332, 1998 GWD 4-153

T
Tetra Pak Rausing SA v Commission (Case T-51/89) [1990] ECR II-309, here
[1991] 4 CMLR 334, [1991] FSR 654

V
Van Zuylen Frères v Hag AG (Case 192/73) [1974] ECR 731, [1974] 2 here
CMLR 127, [1974] FSR 511

W
Whaley v Lord Advocate [2003] Scot CS 78, [2004] SC 78, 2004 SLT here
425

X
X v Sweeney 1982 JC 70, 1982 SCCR 161; sub nom H v Sweeney 1983 here
SLT 48
Part I

The Scottish legal system

The primary aims of this book are to provide an account of the educational and training
requirements for entry into the Scottish legal profession, and to give some guidance on the study
skills needed to fulfil these requirements successfully. But it is impossible to come to grips with
this subject without some knowledge and understanding of the legal system in Scotland and of the
profession itself. This is particularly so when in recent years both system and profession have been
undergoing major changes. Part I is therefore an account of the Scottish legal system.
Chapter 1

The Law in Scotland

1.01 There are three major legal systems in the United Kingdom. One is in England and Wales,
and another is in Northern Ireland. The third, and the one with which this book is primarily
concerned, is in Scotland. Although these legal systems share a legislature in the Westminster
Parliament for the making of new laws, each of them has long had its own structure of courts, its
own ways of qualifying as a lawyer, and its own legal rules. In addition, Scotland now has its own
Parliament in Edinburgh, while Northern Ireland (not to mention Wales) has an Assembly. The
reasons for these legal divisions of the United Kingdom are historical; we need only concern
ourselves with Scotland.

1.02 There is an independent Scottish legal system today because until the Union of the Crowns
in 1603 and the Union of the Parliaments in 1707 Scotland was an independent sovereign state.
When King James VI of Scotland became James I of England and Great Britain in 1603, there was
considerable interest in the possibility of establishing a single legal system for his two kingdoms,
while during the Cromwellian interlude of the 1650s the possibility moved some way towards an
actuality. But the 1707 Union, while creating a single British Crown and Parliament, also showed a
recognition that the establishment of a single legal system and body of law for the whole of the
new United Kingdom was not really a practical proposition. Article XVIII provided for the
continuation of Scots law after the Union, excepting only the ‘Laws concerning Regulation of
Trade, Customs and Excises’, which were to ‘be the same in Scotland, from and after the Union as
in England’. Change to Scots law was allowed under the Article, but in matters of ‘private right’
such change had to be for the ‘evident utility’ of the Scottish people. Only in matters of ‘public
right’ might the aim be simply to make the law the same throughout the United Kingdom.

1.03 Article XIX of the Union laid down that the principal Scottish courts, the Court of Session
and the High Court of Justiciary, should ‘remain in all time coming’ as they were then constituted,
subject only to regulations for the better administration of justice which the new British Parliament
might choose to make. The Article also stated that all the other Scottish courts should remain, ‘but
subject to Alterations by the Parliament of Great Britain’. If you have already taken the point which
flows from the absence of qualification to this last quotation, namely that such alterations to the
other courts do not have to be for the better administration of justice, you are well on your way to
thinking like a lawyer. A final point in Article XIX was that Scottish cases were not to be dealt with
in the English courts ‘in Westminster-hall’, which likewise continued their pre-Union existence.

1.04 These Articles remain as the formal basis for the continuing existence of an independent
Scottish legal system and law. This is why when you live and work in Scotland you are governed
by laws which may well be and often are quite different from those found in the other parts of the
United Kingdom. It is also why, when you study law in Scotland, it will probably be Scots law that
is the basis for your course. This is very important if you want to be a lawyer. If you take a law
degree in Scotland, the quickest route to final professional qualification thereafter will also be in
Scotland. If you think you want to practise law in England and Wales, or in Northern Ireland, you
are probably best to take your degree in the jurisdiction concerned. But this is not absolute. Dundee
University offers both a Scottish and an English law degree. Also, for reasons and by routes to be
discussed later (see paras 8.09–8.12), a Scottish law degree can be used to obtain professional
qualifications elsewhere in the United Kingdom (not to mention the rest of the world). So you need
not feel that you are restricting yourself to a purely Scottish legal career when you embark upon a
Scots law degree. Of course, if you have no intention of becoming a lawyer, then the question of
where you took your law degree matters a great deal less.

1.05 The remainder of this chapter sets out in simple terms some of the major characteristics of
the Scottish legal system as it has taken shape since the 1707 Union. The choice of topics has been
dictated by what is needed for understanding some of the discussions later in the book. The main
perspective chosen is a historical one, which offers the easiest way of explaining some of the quirks
in a system which, having developed slowly over time rather than being produced according to a
grand overall design, is not always straightforward.

THE SCOTTISH LEGAL SYSTEM: THE LEGISLATURE

European, UK and Scottish legislative bodies

1.06 In modern terms, a legislature is a body which has the function of making new law. Within
the United Kingdom, as already indicated, until 1999 this role was mainly carried out by the
Westminster Parliament (website http://www.parliament.uk/), and the Scottish legal system had no
legislature of its own after the Union of the Parliaments of England and Scotland in 1707. The
United Kingdom’s accession to the European Communities on 1 January 1973, implemented by the
European Communities Act 1972, had meant the addition of a further legislative authority in the
legal system. The European Union makes law principally through the Council (of Ministers), but
generally this body can act only on a proposal from the Union’s executive (or civil service), the
Commission (website http://ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm). The elected European Parliament, based
in Strasbourg, with a secondary seat in Brussels and administrative offices in Luxemburg (website
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/en) has an equally important role in EU legislation. The
ordinary legislative procedure requires the agreement of both Parliament and Council to pass laws
on important areas including economic governance, immigration and consumer protection. The
European Parliament also has the opportunity to request the Commission to introduce legislation,
as well as the responsibility of checking that the proposed legislation is within the competence of
the EU and complies with all mandatory procedural and substantive rules.1

1. The European Union, created by the Maastricht Treaty 1992, was founded upon the European Community and
two other ‘pillars’ (ie common foreign and security policy and police and judicial cooperation in criminal
matters). Following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty 2007, all three pillars are now subject to the democratic
and judicial controls of the Community system. It is therefore correct to speak of ‘EU’ law, although
‘Community’ law can be used to refer to the law pre-Lisbon.

1.07 In May 1999 the Scottish Parliament, which had been set up under the Scotland Act 1998,
began to sit in Edinburgh.1 The initial sessions of its 129 members (MSPs) were in the Church of
Scotland Assembly Hall on The Mound. In 2004, after a long and expensive construction saga, a
purpose-built home opened at Holyrood. From the beginning the Scottish Parliament has had an
excellent website (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/). Under Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act as
amended by the Scotland Act 2012 the Parliament has power to make laws on any topic not
specifically reserved to the Westminster Parliament. The latter also retains the power to legislate in
the areas otherwise devolved to Edinburgh. This reflects a traditional theory about government in
the United Kingdom known as the ‘Supremacy of Parliament’ (ie Westminster), which means that
Parliament is legislatively omnicompetent, the courts must apply the laws it makes no matter how
abhorrent or repugnant they may be, and other bodies can only legislate so far as allowed to do so
by Westminster. However, many people now think that this doctrine is out-of-date or in need of
modification. It first had to be adjusted when Britain entered the European Community in 1973. A
fundamental principle of EU law is that national law is subject to EU rules, and where the two are
inconsistent, the latter prevails. There are now several examples of British statutes being over-
ridden in our courts on this ground. Accordingly the supremacy of Parliament has ceased to be
absolute. A further constraint was introduced when the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force on
2 October 2000. Under this statute a court can declare Westminster legislation to be incompatible
with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in effect requiring Parliament to change
the law in question to make it compatible with the Convention. In practice, Westminster also does
not legislate very often in the areas which have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and so
there is a further, factual, limitation on the supremacy of Westminster. The Scottish Parliament is
also able to repeal or amend Westminster legislation which is among the devolved matters.

1. At the same time there came into existence the Scottish Executive, the civil service supporting the Scottish
Ministers who form the governing group in the Scottish Parliament. Under the Scotland Act 2012 the Executive
is now officially known as the Scottish Government (a title that had however been assumed when the SNP
formed its first administration in 2007). See the Scottish Government website, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/.
There is also the Westminster Government’s Scotland Office in Whitehall, much reduced in significance
compared to the former Scottish Office: see its website, http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk.

1.08 It has been argued for many years that in Scotland there is another limitation upon the
supremacy of Westminster, arising from the provisions of the 1707 Union already referred to
(above, paras 1.02–1.03). Thus the legislation providing for Britain’s accession to the European
Community in 1973 was challenged on the grounds that it was not for the ‘evident utility’ of the
people of Scotland (Gibson v Lord Advocate 1975 SC 136), while claims were also made that the
community charge or poll tax legislation for Scotland (the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc
(Scotland) Act 1987) and the Skye Bridge toll charges infringed the Union agreement by not
making, in a matter of ‘excise’, ie taxation, equal provision with respect to England (Murray v
Rogers 1992 SLT 221; Fraser v MacCorquodale 1992 SLT 229; Robbie the Pict v Hingston 1998
SLT 1209). The Scottish courts have always rejected such claims when made, but have never said
that it is absolutely impossible to challenge legislation on the grounds of inconsistency with the Act
of Union. It remains to be seen whether a successful challenge will ever be brought.

1.09 The supremacy doctrine does not apply to the Scottish Parliament in its own right, since
legislation beyond its devolved powers or contrary to either EU law or the ECHR is challengeable
in court and is not to be given any effect as law. The legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament
has generally survived challenges made to it in court.1

1. See A v Scottish Ministers 2000 SC (PC) 63; Adams v Scottish Ministers 2004 SC 665; Whaley v Lord Advocate
2004 SLT 425; Axa General Insurance v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46; 2011 SLT 1061; Imperial Tobacco
Ltd, Petitioner [2012] CSIH 9; 2012 GWD 11-200; Scotch Whisky Association v Lord Advocate [2014] CSIH 38.
But see Salvesen v Riddells and Lord Advocate [2012] CSIH 26; 2012 GWD 12-234; Christian Institute v Lord
Advocate [2016] UKSC 51.

Legislative procedure

(a) Westminster Parliament

1.10 The Westminster Parliament is bicameral: that is, divided into two chambers, the House of
Commons and the House of Lords. Before any new measure, or Bill, can become law, it must be
passed by both Houses and receive the Royal Assent (this last being a formality in modern
constitutional practice). The laws passed at Westminster are known as Acts or statutes. Statutes can
also confer power on bodies other than Parliament (eg a government minister or a local authority)
to make law for defined purposes: there is a vast amount of such subordinate legislation, or
statutory instruments, every year. In carrying out its legislative function, Parliament may make a
statute which is applicable to Scotland only, and not to the rest of the United Kingdom (although
this is much less likely since devolution). The easy way to identify such a statute is because the
word ‘Scotland’ appears in its title: eg the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act
1990, the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991. But the absence of such an identifier in its
title does not mean that the statute is inapplicable to Scotland, and there is no practice of inserting
‘England and Wales’ into statute titles even when the legislation is indeed limited to that
jurisdiction. Instead you usually have to look for a section saying that the statute is not applicable
to Scotland. It is also perfectly possible for a statute to be applicable throughout the United
Kingdom. Examples you are likely to encounter on a law course include the Companies Acts, the
Finance Acts (which lay down the law on general taxation), the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and a
number of criminal law statutes such as the Road Traffic Act 1988. Very often these United
Kingdom statutes are cast in the technical language of English law, and a Scots lawyer reading
them has to look for the section of the Act, usually headed ‘Application to Scotland’, in which
these terms are translated into Scottish legal terminology. The Parliamentary draftsmen who write
the text of statutes refer to such sections as ‘putting a kilt’ on the legislation. A further legislative
technique is to deal with both Scotland and the other countries in one statute, but to give each
jurisdiction its own part or parts within the text. Examples of this which again you are likely to
encounter in law studies are the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Insolvency Act 1986.

(b) Scottish Parliament

1.11 The Scottish Parliament is unicameral, and Bills need only be passed by its single chamber
and receive the Royal Assent to become Acts. There are complex pre-legislative procedures
designed to ensure as far as possible that legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament is within its
devolved competence. The committees of the Parliament also play an important role in the scrutiny
of legislation in draft. An Act of the Scottish Parliament (ASP) is usually identified in its short title
by the appearance in it of the bracketed word ‘Scotland’ – for example, the Adults with Incapacity
(Scotland) Act 2000. Some ASPs do however only have the word ‘Scottish’ to indicate their origin
– for example, the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Act 2002. ASPs may also be cited by
year and their numbers in the sequence of passage in that year, eg the two Acts just mentioned are
respectively asp 2000, no 4, and asp 2002, no 1. The appearance of this reference after the short
title will tell you whether the Act comes from Holyrood or Westminster. Such Acts can only extend
to Scotland or, more accurately, can only form part of Scots law.

1.12 One further point worth mentioning briefly is that Acts of the pre-1707 Scottish Parliament
still form part of the law so far as not repealed at Westminster or, from 1999 on, at Holyrood.
Further, those not so repealed are not necessarily protected from challenge in the courts. It is also
possible to argue in court that pre-1707 legislation has ‘fallen into desuetude’, that is, disuse, and is
no longer observed. Most of the pre-1707 Acts which have not already been repealed or held in
desuetude are probably now unlikely to be subject to this kind of challenge, but one never knows
when an obscure old law may be dug up if it will serve someone’s purpose to do so. In these
circumstances a doctrine of ‘desuetude’ can be useful; on the other hand, sometimes ancient law
can provide helpful solutions not available in more modern sources. See for example Britton v
Johnstone 1992 SCLR 947, reviving the Curators Act 1585.

(c) European legislative procedures

1.13 The foundation documents of the European Union are the Treaty of Rome 1957, and its
subsequent amendments by the Single European Act 1986, the Treaty on European Union made at
Maastricht 1992, the Treaty of Amsterdam 1997, the Treaty of Nice 2001 and the Treaty of Lisbon
2007.1 Under these treaties, the two main forms of EU legislation are Regulations and Directives.
Regulations are directly applicable as law throughout the European Union, often giving citizens
enforceable rights. Directives require only Member States to take action in their own legislatures
within a certain period, but may nonetheless have direct effect in giving citizens rights as well in
the event of faulty or non-implementation by their Member State. In the United Kingdom,
Directives are typically carried through by a statute or by statutory instruments using powers under
the European Communities Act 1972, with the Scottish Parliament or Government also having
responsibility in devolved matters. EU legislative power is gradually being extended, although the
Treaty of Maastricht recognised (but did not define) a principle of ‘subsidiarity’, whereby decisions
are to be taken as closely to the citizen as possible and in areas outside its exclusive competence the
European Union will act only if the objectives in question cannot be sufficiently achieved by the
Member States themselves. The political problem lies, of course, in defining when the objective
cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can be best achieved by the European
Union.

1. The Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force in December 2009, makes a number of amendments to the founding
treaties which were initially put forward as a Constitution of the European Union, and then revised following
failure to be ratified by Member States in 2005.

Background to legislation
1.14 What lies behind the production of legislation? A whole variety of factors political, social
and economic may be at work, depending on what it is the legislation is trying to achieve. Part of
the function of government is to identify problems which require change or addition to the law.
Generally when a government intends to introduce legislation, its proposals are preceded by
consultation and discussion papers in which the problems are set out and options for new law put
forward. The aim of these documents is to obtain general comment and criticism which can be
taken on board before draft legislation is put to the legislature. This is the opportunity for interested
persons and pressure groups to have their initial say on the matter; these opportunities continue for
as long the legislation is being debated in the legislature. Of course interested persons and pressure
groups do not have to wait until government decides to take action; a crucial part of the political
process is persuading government to take action. If the government cannot be persuaded, or is
unwilling to find time to take action, attention may shift to individual members of the legislature,
who can also propose new legislation. One of the problems in this is that a great deal of the most
important subject-matter of the law is not very interesting politically – few votes are usually to be
won in dealing with technical difficulties in the law of contract or trusts, for example – but reform
may nonetheless be very necessary. In 1965, to help keep the more technical areas of the law up-to-
date in the United Kingdom, the then-government established the Law Commissions, one for
England and Wales and one for Scotland. The Scottish Law Commission, which is based in
Edinburgh (website http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/), works to programmes of law reform,
monitoring particular areas of law, issuing consultation papers on problems and possible reforms,
and reporting to government with legislative proposals and draft Bills. Many important legislative
changes in Scots law have followed from the activities of the Commission.

THE SCOTTISH LEGAL SYSTEM: THE COURTS

1.15 As we have seen, while the 1707 Union got rid of the then Scottish Parliament, it
preserved the Scottish court system. In 1707 the principal courts were the Court of Session and the
High Court of Justiciary. The latter dealt with criminal cases and the former with non-criminal, or
civil, cases. (The distinction between civil and criminal will be explained later on: see paras 1.34–
1.39.) Both courts continue to function to this day.1 The Court of Session sits in Parliament House
in Edinburgh, just behind St Giles Kirk on the High Street. The building incorporates the hall
where the pre-1707 Scottish Parliament met, which is well worth a visit in its own right. The High
Court of Justiciary sits permanently in the Lawnmarket in Edinburgh, and also in Glasgow and
Aberdeen. In addition, the Court goes ‘on circuit’ in other towns all over Scotland, sitting in Sheriff
Court buildings. However, the appeals division of the High Court sits only in Edinburgh. In 1999
special legislation was passed to enable the High Court to sit in the Netherlands for the trial of the
two Libyans accused of bombing the jet airliner which exploded over Lockerbie in December
1988, killing 279 people. This was, however, a very unusual case, because it is an old tradition that
criminal trials should normally be held in the area where the crime was committed.

1. The Scottish courts have a website: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk. The site also contains information about the
sheriff courts, for which see further below, paras 1.21–1.24. See too the Judiciary of Scotland website:
http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/1/0/Home.

The Court of Session

1.16 Traditional accounts of the Court of Session date its foundation to 1532. In fact, the court
has a much longer history than that. Its origins lie in petitions to the king by his subjects seeking
justice. In the fifteenth century the king dealt with these petitions according to the advice of his
council, a relatively informal group of advisers made up of senior churchmen, lords and other
laymen. The growing number of petitions forced the council to set up special sessions to deal with
them. Increasingly certain lords of council came to specialise in its judicial work. By the beginning
of the sixteenth century, the ‘Lords of Council and Session’ were an established grouping, meeting
regularly and clearly constituting an institution for the dispensing of justice. The date of 1532 is
nevertheless important, because in that year the Pope agreed to let King James V have certain
church resources to set up a College of Justice in Scotland. The Lords of Council and Session,
headed by a Lord President, formed this new College, but there was no real break with the past in
this development, although the Lords now became Senators of the College of Justice. Gradually
also there arose a distinction between the Lords Ordinary, who held permanent paid appointments
as judges in the court, and the Extraordinary Lords, who held office at the king’s pleasure and were
not paid; the latter were to continue until abolished in the eighteenth century.

1.17 After 1532 the Lords of Session firmly established their court as the most important civil
court in Scotland. From 1532 on there were fifteen Lords, headed by the Lord President. All fifteen
sat together to determine cases, but generally one would be deputed to take the evidence in the
cases before the court reached its decisions. This led to the evolution of the Outer and Inner Houses
of the court. The Inner House was where the Lords sat together in an inner room of their building
(originally either Edinburgh’s Tolbooth, the site of which is marked by the ‘Heart of Midlothian’
outside St Giles Kirk, or the west end of St Giles itself; then from 1638 the present location of
Parliament House); the Outer House was a room near the front where the evidence was heard by
the deputed Lord. In the early nineteenth century, this system was rationalised. Some of the Lords
came to sit permanently in the Outer House, not only hearing the evidence but deciding the case as
well. Henceforth the term ‘Lord Ordinary’ would only be applied to the judges of the Outer House.
The Inner House became a court to which litigants could appeal against the decisions of the Lords
Ordinary in the Outer House. Two divisions of the Inner House, each ultimately consisting of four
Lords, were created: the First Division, in which the Lord President presides, and the Second
Division, in which the Lord Justice-Clerk presides (for whom, see para 1.19 below). These
Divisions were of equivalent status.

1.18 This remains in essence the structure of the Court of Session. If you begin an action in the
court, you start before a Lord Ordinary in the Outer House. In 2014–15, 5,164 causes were initiated
in the Outer House.1 The vast majority of those actions were for reparation in damages for personal
injuries. To assist with the disposal of this and criminal business (for the extent of which see below,
para 1.20), the 34 Senators have been supplemented by a number of Temporary Judges since 1990
(see, for a holding that such judges are not contrary to the fair trial provisions of the ECHR, Clancy
v Caird 2000 SC 441). Any appeal against the Lord Ordinary’s decision (technically known as a
reclaiming motion) goes to one of the two Divisions of the Inner House, where normally three of
its judges will consider the matter. Today there are often Extra Divisions in order to get through the
case-load efficiently. However there are still reminders of the days when the whole court sat
together, as it remains possible to convene the Lords, or an odd number of them above three, to
reconsider particularly difficult cases or deal with matters of high importance. The decision is then
described as a decision of the Whole Court. See for a good example Law Hospital NHS Trust v
Lord Advocate 1996 SC 301, considering when if at all life support for a PVS patient might be
withdrawn.

1. Statistics about civil courts here and in later paragraphs are derived from Civil Judicial Statistics 2014–2015 (the
latest available in July 2016), accessible on the Internet at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0049/00497242.pdf.

1.19 In 2007, the then Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Gill, was commissioned to carry out a review of
the civil court structure in Scotland. The Report of the Scottish Civil Courts Review was published
in 2009. The report proposed sweeping changes to the level at which civil business would be
determined in the Scottish courts, with the headline reform being the increase in the privative
(exclusive) jurisdiction of the Sheriff Court from £5,000 to £150,000. The report recommended the
creation of a new tier of court, the Sheriff Appeal Court, which would determine appeals from
decisions of a sheriff in civil cases, and in summary criminal cases (sheriff and justice of the peace
court). There would only be onward appeal from the Sheriff Appeal Court to the Inner House
where a point of general public importance was raised. The report also recommended that a
specialist sheriff court be established to deal, in particular, with the large volume of personal injury
cases which were previously raised in the Court of Session, and which would transfer to the Sheriff
Court under the new regime. The Review also made a number of other proposals on procedural
reform, including the creation of a new tier of Summary Sheriff. The Scottish Government in large
part accepted the proposals of the Review, and implemented the majority of them by the passage of
the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. From 22 September 2015, only cases with a value of
£100,000, or which raise a point of wider public importance, can be raised in the Court of Session.
The implementation of the Gill reforms has caused, and will continue to cause, a significant
redistribution in the civil business before the Scottish courts.

The High Court of Justiciary

1.20 The High Court of Justiciary has a longer formal history than the Court of Session. It can
trace its origins back to twelfth-century royal officers called justices or justiciars, who enjoyed both
a criminal and a civil jurisdiction. In the middle ages there were normally two justiciars, one for
Scotland north of Forth, one for Scotland south of Forth. Each went on circuit or ‘ayre’ through the
parts of Scotland for which he was responsible, administering royal justice to the king’s subjects.
Gradually the civil jurisdiction of the justiciars disappeared, confining their activities to criminal
matters. By the sixteenth century, there was only one justice or justiciar, known as the Justice
General because he had responsibility for all Scotland; but most of the work of holding trials was
done by others known as justice deputes. There was also the Justice Clerk, so called originally
because he was the clerk to the court – that is, responsible for its records. In the seventeenth
century the Lord Justice-Clerk moved ‘from the Table (ie the well of the court) to the Bench’, and
became a judge. In 1672 the Justiciary was reorganised with a court sitting permanently in
Edinburgh, headed by the Lord Justice-General and the Lord Justice-Clerk, and Commissioners of
Justiciary, appointed from amongst the Lords of Session, carrying out the circuit work. In 1830 it
was laid down that the office of the Lord Justice-General should be combined with that of the Lord
President, and in 1887 it was provided that all the Lords of Session should also be Lords
Commissioner of Justiciary. The final major change giving rise to the court as we know it today
was the establishment in 1926 of a Court of Criminal Appeal within the High Court. This followed
the notorious miscarriage of justice in the Oscar Slater case, which was exposed by the creator of
Sherlock Holmes, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, leading to the release of a man wrongly convicted of
murder in 1909 and imprisoned for nearly 20 years. (See Slater v HM Advocate 1928 JC 94.) The
Court of Criminal Appeal sits in Edinburgh, and hears appeals not only from the High Court as a
trial court but also from the lower courts with a criminal jurisdiction.
1.21 Trials in the High Court follow what is called solemn procedure, meaning that they are
always before a judge and a jury of 15 persons. High Court cases form a tiny percentage of the
overall business in the criminal courts in Scotland, yet, perhaps unsurprisingly, they dominate the
media coverage. In 2014–2015, only 0.4% of those convicted were in the High Court. The reforms
to High Court procedure, which were implemented in 2005 following a review conducted by
retired judge, Lord Bonomy, means that a significant proportion of cases now resolve ahead of the
trial diet.1 That said, in recent years, anecdotal evidence suggests that more High Court cases now
proceed to trial than was previously the case. Those trials which do proceed also take longer than
they historically did, in part no doubt due to the presentation of complex forensic evidence and the
practice of putting prior statements to witnesses. Like the Court of Session, the High Court can
convene as a Whole Court of five or more judges to consider difficult issues of law (see eg McLean
v HM Advocate 2010 SLT 73 (7 Judges), subsequently over-ruled, however, in Cadder v HM
Advocate 2011 SC (UKSC) 13.

1. Statistics on the criminal courts here and in later paragraphs are derived from the Statistics on Case Processing
(http://www.crownoffice.gov.uk/images/Documents/Statistics/Case%20Processing%20Financial%20Year%20Ap
ril%202015%20to%20March%202016.pdf), Scottish Government Criminal Proceedings in Scotland 2014/15
(accessible at http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/02/6001).

The Sheriff Appeal Court

1.22 The Sheriff Appeal Court took up its criminal jurisdiction in September 2015, and its civil
jurisdiction in January 2016. The court presently sits in Parliament House. The bench consists of
two or three appeal sheriffs sitting together, depending on the nature of the appeal to be decided.
Appeal sheriffs are drawn from the cohort of sheriffs, who become eligible once they have served
as sheriff for five years. The first President of the Court is Sheriff Mhairi Stephen, formerly Sheriff
Principal of the Sheriffdom of Lothian and Borders. Decisions of the Sheriff Appeal Court are
binding in all Sheriff Courts in Scotland.

The Sheriff Court

1.23 The 1707 Union preserved other existing Scottish courts in rather less absolute terms than
for the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary. Of those which have survived to modern
times, much the most important is the Sheriff Court. The sheriff has a very long history in Scotland,
going back to the early twelfth century. Originally he was the king’s officer in a particular district,
and by the end of the thirteenth century Scotland was divided up into a number of these districts,
which were known as sheriffdoms (usually co-extensive with the counties which survived as a unit
of local government until 1975). The sheriff or, increasingly, his depute, presided over a court
which dealt with judicial business arising in the sheriffdom. The office of sheriff became heritable
in noble families in many instances, and generally the sheriff depute did the court work. In 1748,
following the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion led by Bonnie Prince Charlie, heritable sheriffs were
abolished, and the sheriff depute effectively became the sheriff, often having under him sheriffs
substitute. In the nineteenth century it became possible to appeal to the sheriff depute from the
decisions of his sheriffs substitute. In the twentieth century the judicial titles were rationalised, with
the sheriff depute being re-designated as Sheriff Principal, and the sheriffs substitute becoming
simply sheriffs.

1.24 Today there are six sheriffdoms in Scotland, each with its own Sheriff Principal. The
Sheriff Principal is responsible for, amongst other things, the efficient disposal of court business in
the sheriffdom. The sheriffdoms are in turn divided into thirty-nine sheriff court districts, each
having its own sheriff court building.1 Like the Lord Ordinary in the Outer House of the Court of
Session, the sheriff is a judge of first instance in civil matters, sitting alone. There are relatively few
civil cases which cannot be begun in the Sheriff Court so long as the court has jurisdiction over the
defender by virtue of his residence in the sheriffdom, and over the subject-matter of the action. The
main excluded topic is reduction (ie nullification) of documents. The Sheriff Court has exclusive
jurisdiction in cases of up to £100,000 in value. There is no upper limit on the value of a claim
which can be brought in the Sheriff Court. Procedure varies: most actions will follow what is called
ordinary procedure, but there also exist the less formal summary cause and small claim procedures
for actions of between £5,000 and £3,000, and under £3,000 in value respectively.2 The vast
majority of civil cases in Scotland are raised in the Sheriff Court. Of that total, the majority are
small claim actions for payment of a debt. To assist the 142 sheriffs permanently based or resident
in particular sheriffdoms, there are now no more than eighty part-time sheriffs who may sit from
time to time in any sheriffdom. These replaced the previous ‘temporary’ sheriffs, whose
dependence on the head of the criminal prosecution service (the Lord Advocate – see further para
1.37 below) for their continuation in office was held to disable them from holding an objectively
fair trial, contrary to Article 6 of the ECHR (see Starrs v Ruxton 2000 JC 208; Millar v Dickson
2002 SC (PC) 30). On 22 September 2015, the All-Scotland Personal Injury Court (ASPIC), sitting
in Edinburgh Sheriff Court, took up its jurisdiction. There has already been a significant transfer of
business from the Court of Session to ASPIC as a consequence of the increase in the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Sheriff Court. The Sheriff Appeal Court has replaced the right of appeal to the
Sheriff Principal of the Sheriffdom, against a decision of a sheriff at first instance.

1. Previously 49 sheriff court districts, but plans to close 10 sheriff courts were proposed by the Scottish Court
Service, and approved by the Scottish Government, in 2013.
2. Small claim and summary cause procedure will be replaced with Simple Procedure, as part of the implementation
of the recommendations of the Scottish Civil Courts Review. As at July 2016, the provisions are not yet in force.

1.25 The criminal jurisdiction of the Sheriff Court is also wide, but it is excluded from the major
crimes (murder, rape, treason and piracy) which are known as ‘pleas of the Crown’, and which
must be tried in the High Court of Justiciary. Most other criminal cases can be tried in the Sheriff
Court, but its powers of sentence are limited according to the procedure adopted in the prosecution.
Procedure may be solemn, before a jury, as in the High Court, or summary, before the sheriff sitting
alone. The maximum sentence of imprisonment which a sheriff sitting with a jury can impose from
1 May 2004 is five years. If a person convicted in the Sheriff Court is thought to merit a longer
sentence, the case is remitted to the High Court, which alone has the requisite powers to give it.
The prosecutor may also decide in advance of a trial to bring the prosecution in the High Court
rather than the Sheriff Court if it is thought that the greater sentencing powers of the High Court
ought to be used in the event of conviction. By contrast, very petty crimes will often be prosecuted
in the local Justice of the Peace Court, where procedure is always summary and the judge (known
as a justice of the peace) is not a lawyer (http://www.scottishjustices.org). The maximum sentence
a Justice of the Peace can give is sixty days imprisonment. The vast majority of criminal cases are
dealt with at summary level. In 2014/15, around 39% of the total number of criminal convictions in
Scotland were in the Justice of the Peace Courts, with 56% in the Sheriff Court at summary level.
Only 4% of convictions were in Sheriff Court solemn cases, with less than 1% in the High Court of
Justiciary. The route of appeal remains to the High Court of Justiciary as the Court of Criminal
Appeal in solemn cases.

The United Kingdom Supreme Court: background

1.26 There were four major additions to the Scottish court structure from 1707 to 1999. The
first, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, and the last, the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council, were however replaced by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in October
2009 (see below paras 1.31–1.32). The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords heard appeals
from the Inner House of the Court of Session, latterly only rarely more than a dozen per year. The
House of Lords is better-known as the upper chamber of the UK legislature, but it also had a
judicial function in which it was headed by a Government Minister, the Lord Chancellor. This
combination of judicial with legislative and executive functions was questioned and was a key
reason for the reforms which introduced the UK Supreme Court (see further below, para 1.32). The
House was also the final court of appeal in the English and Northern Irish legal systems, and its
judges, known properly as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and sometimes also as Law Lords, were
drawn from all three jurisdictions. There were no more than twelve full-time Law Lords, of whom
two were Scots lawyers. Since an appeal was normally heard by five Law Lords, and decisions
taken by a majority, this could mean that on a Scots appeal the views of the Scots lawyers in the
House might be defeated by the contrary opinions of their English and Northern Irish brethren.1 In
practice the non-Scots on the panel usually deferred to the Scots, and controversy was more likely
to flow from the fact that the two Scots sitting in London could effectively over-rule what might
have been the unanimous view of the Court of Session in Edinburgh.2

1. See for an example Cleisham v British Transport Commission 1964 SC (HL) 8.

2. See eg Sharp v Thomson 1997 SC (HL) 66; contrast Burnett’s Trustee v Grainger 2004 SC (HL) 19.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

1.27 The United Kingdom was the first country to ratify the European Convention on Human
Rights 1950, and has been subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in
Strasbourg since 1966. The Court’s role is to adjudicate in claims that a member state has infringed
a person’s Convention rights, and there have been a number of cases emanating from Scotland (see
eg Campbell and Cosans v UK (1982) 4 EHRR 293; McMichael v UK (1995) 20 EHRR 205). For
the court’s website, see http://www.echr.coe.int/. The Human Rights Act 1998 enables issues about
Convention rights to be aired in domestic courts as well, but the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court
continues. Although British courts must take the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights
into account in reaching their own decisions, there is no other direct relationship such as an appeal
or a reference for guidance (see further para 1.28). In 2006 the Scottish Parliament passed
legislation to set up the Scottish Human Rights Commission, the website of which can be accessed
at http://www.scottishhumanrights.com.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)

1.28 The next major addition to the Scottish court system came about when the United
Kingdom entered the European Community in 1973. Its successor, the European Union, is
dependent on laws which it makes to achieve its political, economic and social goals (see above,
paras 1.06, 1.13). When disputes arise about the application of these laws, therefore, it is necessary
for them to be resolved in courts. The courts of the Member States must apply EU law, even where
it conflicts with the law of the Member State concerned. However, there may be questions about
the validity of EU law, and national courts have a duty to refer such questions to the Court of
Justice of the European Union. Again, when issues about the interpretation of EU law arise, the
national court has a power (and, if it is a court of last instance, a duty) to refer the point to the
Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on its meaning. Such references are not the same thing as
an appeal, since once the Court of Justice has made its ruling, the case is returned to the national
court, which then has to apply the ruling in making its decision. There have not been many
references from Scottish courts to the Court of Justice (only 13 from Scotland since 1973 up to the
end of 2011). As the European Union expands its scope, more EU law questions may arise
requiring an answer. For important examples of Scottish references, see Case C-394/96 Brown v
Rentokil Ltd [1998] ECR I-4185, Joined Cases C-20 and 64/00 Booker Aquaculture Ltd v Scottish
Ministers [2003] ECR I-7411, and C333/14 Scotch Whisky Association v Lord Advocate [2016] 1
WLR 2283. On the other hand, national courts are not bound to refer EU law points to the Court of
Justice unless they are courts of last instance, and as knowledge, understanding and experience of
EU law increase, so national courts should feel increasingly confident of their own powers of
interpretation.

1.29 The Court of Justice sits in Luxembourg and is made up of one judge from each of the
Member States. Of the British judges to have served on the court so far, two were Scots lawyers:
Lord Mackenzie Stuart (1973–1988) and David Edward (1992–2004). In addition to the judges,
there are eight Advocates-General, whose function is to assist the Court in reaching its decisions by
presenting reasoned submissions on cases brought before it. The court’s jurisdiction is not confined
to references from national courts; it also deals with disputes between the European Union’s other
institutions, on the one hand, and between Member States and commercial enterprises on the other.
For the Court’s website, see http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/court-
justice/index_en.htm. With the growth of the court’s work-load beginning to over-burden it, a new
Court of First Instance was established in 1989 to deal with some of the cases, but this does not
(yet) include questions referred by the national courts. This branch of the CJEU is now known as
the General Court, and its decisions may be appealed on points of law (Pourvoi) to the Court of
Justice.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

1.30 Under the Scotland Act 1998 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was the court of
last resort in the determination of disputes about the legislative competence of the Scottish
Parliament and other ‘devolution issues’. This appellate jurisdiction has, as of October 2009, now
been taken over by the UK Supreme Court. Because devolution issues include the acts of the Lord
Advocate as the public prosecutor of crime (see below, para 1.36), this jurisdiction meant Scottish
criminal cases being considered in London for the first time. Thirteen such appeals were lodged in
2000, the first year of the court’s operation in this capacity, but this quickly settled down to only
two or three per year thereafter.1 A Law Officer who under the Scotland Act 1998 has considerable
responsibility in bringing devolution issues to the attention of the courts is the Advocate General
for Scotland. See the office’s website, http://www.advocategeneral.gov.uk/oag/CCC_FirstPage.jsp

1. For statistical information see the archived Privy Council website, http://www.privy-
council.org.uk/output/Page34.asp.

The United Kingdom Supreme Court: jurisdiction in Scotland

1.31 The devolution jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was merged
with that of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords under the Constitutional Reform Act
2005 to create a new Supreme Court for the United Kingdom. In October 2009 the new court sat
for the first time. The Supreme Court is based in the former Middlesex Guildhall in London, on the
side of Parliament Square opposite the Houses of Parliament. The location reflects the idea of the
separation of powers, that is to say the independence of the judiciary from both executive and
legislature, which was an important impetus behind the creation of the new court. The Supreme
Court is well worth a visit in person, and has an excellent website, see
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/index.html. There are 12 Justices of the Supreme Court, with the
original 12 being former Law Lords of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. Justices
appointed after the constitution of the court receive the courtesy title ‘Lord’ or ‘Lady’, as the case
may be, but will not become peers. The court is headed by a President (the first being Lord Phillips
of Worth Matravers) and a Deputy President (the first being the Scottish Justice, Lord Hope of
Craighead). There are usually around 10–14 appeals (including devolution matters) from Scotland
to the UK Supreme Court each year.
1.32 Although in England, Wales and Northern Ireland the Supreme Court hears criminal
appeals, there is no similar appeal from the High Court of Justiciary. In this the court continues the
position of the previous House of Lords Appellate Committee, although curiously this point was
not finally determined by the House until as late as 1876 (Mackintosh v Lord Advocate (1876) 3 R
(HL) 34). But criminal cases may raise devolution issues and other questions about Convention
rights and EU law, and these can still be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Other courts and other ways of dealing with disputes

1.33 There are many other courts within the Scottish legal system – for example the Scottish
Land Court, which handles crofting issues, and the Lyon Court, which deals with questions of
armorial bearings – but a knowledge of these not being essential for the purposes of this book, you
should go to the standard works of reference for further information about them. It is worth
knowing, however, that the courts do not provide the only forum for the resolution of disputes in
Scotland. In various areas of the law Parliament has established specialist tribunals in place of the
courts. Examples which you are likely to encounter in the course of your studies of law include the
Lands Tribunal for Scotland and Employment Tribunals. The tribunal system has undergone
extensive reform thanks to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which has established
a structure of ‘first-tier’ tribunals to which the functions of previous specialist tribunals are in the
process of being transferred. These are subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal.
In addition, there is private dispute settlement of various forms, avoiding altogether the use of
instruments of dispute resolution provided by the State. Arbitration, where disputing parties agree
to allow a third person to determine the matter, is probably the best-known. Other forms of dispute
resolution, such as mediation and conciliation in which a third party strives to bring the parties to
an agreement ending their dispute, are becoming more significant. These other forms are often
known as ‘Alternative (or Appropriate) Dispute Resolution’ (ADR). Lawyers are commonly
involved in all these procedures, and are also long versed in the negotiated settlement of disputes
on behalf of clients. The difficulty with studying these extremely important mechanisms for
bringing disputes to an end is that they are private; unlike the decisions of the courts, the results are
not usually published and made available for outsiders to assess. This, of course, is often a major
advantage from the point of view of the participants. But you should be aware that the courts do not
provide the only way of deciding disputes in society, and that the practice of law will frequently
involve the use of the other methods available.

STRUCTURE OF THE LAW

Criminal law and civil law

1.34 The discussion of the courts illustrates a general point about law which is often not well
understood by the public at large. Law is not just about criminals and wrongdoing. Indeed the great
bulk of the law has nothing to do with criminal matters (or indeed the courts). But the fact that
there is a separate structure of courts to deal with criminal law shows how important a part of the
law it is, dealing as it does with the maintenance of good order in society, the infliction of
punishment by the State upon wrongdoers, and the maintenance of individual liberty. This last, that
part of the criminal law which deals with the protection of the accused, is very important, although
often controversial. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission was established in 1999 to
consider cases of possible miscarriages of justice in the courts and where appropriate refer them to
the High Court of Justiciary for reconsideration: see the Commission’s website,
http://www.sccrc.org.uk/.

1.35 Those parts of the law which are not criminal law are usually referred to as forming the
civil law, and lawyers will talk of being either civil or criminal practitioners. There are a number of
aspects to the distinction other than the different court systems, but they should not be over-
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 — Tunsin teidät heti: te tapoitte Kannenbergin! Kaikkien silmät
kääntyivät heti Wolodyjowskiin, joka kiersi viiksiään, kumarsi ja
sanoi:

— Palvelukseksenne, teidän majesteettinne!

— Arvonne? — kysyi kuningas.

— Laudalaisen rykmentin eversti. — Missä palvelitte

aikaisemmin?

— Vilnon vojevodan sotajoukossa.

— Ja jätitte hänet yhdessä toisten kanssa? Petitte hänet ja minut.

— Olen oman kuninkaani alamainen, en teidän majesteettinne.

Kuningas ei vastannut mitään. Kaikkien otsat rypistyivät ja silmät

alkoivat tarkastaa herra Michalia, mutta hän seisoi rauhallisena.

Äkkiä kuningas sanoi:

— Mieluisaa on minusta tutustua niin etevään ritariin.

Kannenbergia pidettiin meidän joukossamme voittamattomana. Te
olette varmaan paras sapelin käyttäjä tässä valtakunnassa…

— In universo! — sanoi Zagloba.

— En viimeinen, — vastasi Wolodyjowski.

— Lausun teidät tervetulleiksi! Herra Czarnieckia kohtaan tunnen

todellista kunnioitusta, sillä hän on suuri soturi, vaikka on rikkonut
lupauksensa, sillä hän oli sitoutunut pysymään paikoillaan
Siewierskissä.
 — Teidän majesteettinne! — huudahti Kmicic. — Ei herra
Czarniecki, vaan kenraali Müller rikkoi ensimmäisenä lupauksensa
saartamalla kuninkaallisen jalkaväkirykmentin, jota johti Wolf.

Müller astui askelen eteenpäin, katsahti Kmicicin kasvoihin ja alkoi

kuiskailla jotakin kuninkaalle, joka silmiään vilkuttaen kuunteli
tarkasti, katseli Andrzejta ja lausui lopulta:

— Huomaan herra Czarnieckin lähettäneen luokseni parhaat

ritarinsa. Tiedän vanhastaan, että joukossanne ei ole puutetta
urhoollisista miehistä, puuttuu vain uskollisuutta lupausten ja valojen
pitämisessä.

— Teidän majesteettinne lausui totisen totuuden! — sanoi

Zagloba.

— Mitä sillä tarkoitatte?

— Jos kansallamme ei olisi tuota vikaa, niin teidän majesteettinne

ei olisi täällä!

Kuningas vaikeni taas vähäksi aikaa, ja kenraalit rypistivät

kulmakarvojaan lähettilään rohkeitten sanojen johdosta.

— Jan Kasimir on itse vapauttanut teidät uskollisuuden valasta, —

sanoi
Kaarle Kustaa, — sillä hän jätti teidät ja pakeni ulkomaille.

— Valasta voi vapauttaa vain Kristuksen sijainen, joka asuu

Roomassa, eikä hän ole meitä vapauttanut.

— Vähät siitä! — sanoi kuningas. — Tämän valtakunnan olen

saanut tällä (hän löi kädellään miekkaansa), ja tällä sen myös pidän
hallussani. En tarvitse vaalejanne enkä valojanne. Jos tahdotte
sotaa, niin saatte sitä. Kai herra Czarniecki vielä muistaa
hyökkäyksensä leiriämme vastaan Golembiessa, vai kuinka?

— Hän on unohtanut sen matkalla Jaroslawista, — vastasi

Zagloba.

Kuningas ei vihastunut, vaan naurahti.

— Minä palautan sen hänen mieleensä!

— Jumalalla on onnen ohjat.

— Sanokaa hänelle, että hän tulisi minua tervehtimään. Hän saa

hyvän vastaanoton. Mutta pitäköön kiirettä, sillä kun olen syöttänyt
hevoseni, jatkan matkaa!

— Silloin me otamme vastaan teidän majesteettinne! — sanoi

Zagloba kumartaen ja laskien kevyesti kätensä miekalleen.

Kuningas sanoi:

— Huomaan, että herra Czarniecki ei ole lähettänyt tänne vain

parhaita taistelijoita, vaan myös parhaat puhujat. Silmänräpäyksessä
te torjutte jokaisen lausuman. Onpa onni, että sotaa ei käydä sillä
keinoin, sillä siinä olisi vastustaja minun veroiseni. Mutta
siirtykäämme asiaan! Herra Czarniecki kirjoittaa minulle, että jos
päästän tämän vangin, niin hän sen korvaukseksi antaa kaksi hyvää
upseeria. Minä en pidä sotureitani niin halpa-arvoisina kuin te
luulette enkä lunasta heitä liian huokeasta, sillä se ei olisi minun eikä
heidän arvon mukaista. Mutta kun minä en tahtoisi kieltää mitään
herra Czarnieckilta, niin annan hänelle lahjaksi tuon ritarin
vapautuksen.
 — Teidän majesteettinne! — sanoi Zagloba. — Herra Czarniecki ei
suinkaan tahtonut vähäksyä ruotsalaisten upseerien arvoa, vaan
osoittaa minulle suopeuden, sillä tämä vankinne on minun sisareni
poika, ja minä taas olen, teidän majesteettinne luvalla sanoen, herra
Czarnieckin neuvonantaja.

— Oikeastaan, — sanoi kuningas nauraen, — minun ei pitäisi

vapauttaa tätä vankia, koska hän on antanut lupauksen, että vainoaa
minua, eikä ole peruuttanut tuota lupaustaan.

Hän viittasi kädellään Rochille, joka yhä seisoi paikoillaan:

— Tulkaahan lähemmäksi!

Roch saapui muutaman askelen päähän ja seisoi suorana.

— Sadowski! — sanoi kuningas. — Kysykää häneltä, lakkaako

hän minua ahdistamasta, jos päästän hänet vapaaksi!

Sadowski toisti vangille kuninkaan kysymyksen.

— En lakkaa! — huudahti Roch.

Kuningas ymmärsi vastauksen ja alkoi taputtaa käsiään.

— Mitä? Tuommoinenko olisi päästettävä vapaaksi?

Kahdeltatoista sotilaaltani hän on vääntänyt niskat nurin ja minut
valinnut kolmanneksitoista uhrikseen. Hyvä! Hyvä! Uljas mies hän
on! Kenties hänkin on herra Czarnieckin neuvonantaja? Siinä
tapauksessa hän pääsee heti vapaaksi.

— Älä ynähdäkään, poika! — kuiskasi Zagloba.

 — Mutta riittää jo leikinlaskua! — sanoi äkkiä Kaarle Kustaa. —
Ottakaa hänet, ja olkoon siinä teille uusi todistus lempeydestäni.
Tämän valtakunnan hallitsijana minä voin armahtaa, mutta
mihinkään sopimusten tekoihin kapinoitsijain kanssa en ryhdy.

Kuninkaan kulmakarvat rypistyivät, ja hymy oli kadonnut hänen

huuliltaan.

— Ken nostaa kätensä minua vastaan, hän on kapinoitsija, sillä

minä olen täällä laillinen hallitsija. Lempeydessäni en tähän saakka
ole teitä rangaissut, niinkuin olisitte ansainneet, vaan olen odottanut
parannustanne. Mutta aika tulee, jolloin lempeyteni on lopussa ja
rangaistus kohtaa. Teidän omavaltaisuutenne ja
epäluotettavaisuutenne tähden on valtakunta liekeissä, teidän
valapattoisuutenne tähden virtailee veri. Mutta sanon teille: aika on
kulumassa loppuun… jos ette halua totella muistutuksia ja lakia, niin
saatte totella miekkaa ja hirsipuuta!

Kuninkaan silmät alkoivat salamoida. Zagloba katseli häntä

hämmästyneenä eikä ymmärtänyt, miten noin äkkiä kirkkaalta
taivaalta oli alkanut sinkoilla salamoita. Mutta sitten alkoi hänen
sydämeensä hiipiä pelko, hän kumarsi ja lausui vain:

— Kiitämme teidän majesteettianne!

Sitten hän lähti ja hänen jäljessään Kmicic, Wolodyjowski ja Roch

Kowalski.

— Lempeä! Lempeä! — puhui Zagloba. — Mutta ennenkuin osaat

varoakaan, ärähtää jo kuin karhu. Kaunis loppu! Toiset tarjoavat
lähtiäisiksi ryypyn, mutta tämä tarjoaa hirsipuuta! Koiriahan hirtetään,
mutta ei aatelismiehiä! Oi, Jumala, Jumala! Raskaasti olemme
rikkoneet kuningastamme vastaan, joka oli, on ja on oleva isämme,
sillä hänellä on Jagiellon sydän! Ja semmoisen kuninkaan ovat
petturit hylänneet mennäkseen veljeilemään merentakaisen
kummituksen kanssa! Se on oikein meille, parempaa emme ole
ansainneet. Hirsipuu! Hirsipuu! Hänet itsensä olemme jo painaneet
seinää vastaan, niin että tuskin henki hänessä enää pihisee, mutta
hän uhkaa vielä miekalla ja hirsipuulla! Odotahan! Älä nuolaise
ennenkuin tipahtaa! Tulee teille vielä ahtaat paikat. Roch! Sinun
pitäisi saada korvillesi tahi selkääsi, mutta annan sinulle nyt
anteeksi, sillä sinä esiinnyit kuin ritari ja lupasit häntä edelleen
ahdistella. Tule tänne, niin suutelen sinua! Olen sinuun tyytyväinen!

— Kas, kun enokin on tyytyväinen! — sanoi Roch.

— Hirsipuuta ja miekkaa! — puheli Zagloba edelleen. — Ja sen

hän sanoi minulle päin naamaa! Onpa teillä suojelija! Noin suojelee
susi pässiä… Ja milloin hän sitä puhuu? Silloin, kun jo on
henkihieverissä. Ottakoon lappalaiset neuvonantajikseen ja
pyytäköön niiden välityksellä pirulta suojelusta! Mutta meitä auttaa
Pyhä Neitsyt! Kun on semmoinen auttaja, niin me heidät jokaisen
otamme niskasta ja vedämme kuin ravut pyydyksestä.
YHDEKSÄS LUKU.

Kului muutamia päiviä. Kuningas oli yhä jokien yhtymäkohdassa ja

lähetti joka suuntaan lähettejä linnoituksiin ja kaikille kenraaleilleen ja
päälliköilleen viemään määräyksiä, että jokaisen oli riennettävä
hänen avukseen. Muonaa kuljetettiin Veikseliä pitkin, mikäli
mahdollista, mutta sitä ei tullut riittävästi. Kun kymmenkunta päivää
oli kulunut, alettiin syödä hevosia, ja kuningas kenraaleineen joutui
epätoivoon ajatellessaan, miten käy, kun ratsumiehillä ei ole hevosia,
eikä tykkejä saada kuljetetuksi. Kaikkialta tuli sen lisäksi huonoja
sanomia. Yli koko maan oli kapinan liekki niin leimahtanut kuin koko
valtakunta olisi tervattu ja sytytetty palamaan. Pienemmät joukko-
osastot eivät voineet tulla avuksi, sillä ne eivät uskaltaneet lähteä
liikkeelle. Liettua, jota Pontus de la Gardie oli rautakourin pitänyt
kurissa, nousi yhtenä miehenä. Suur-Puola, joka ensimmäisenä oli
alistunut, heitti myös ensimmäisenä ikeen niskastaan ja oli
esimerkkinä koko valtakunnalle sankaruudessa, kestäväisyydessä ja
uhrautuvaisuudessa. Aatelis- ja talonpoikaisjoukot eivät hyökänneet
vain kylissä olevien ruotsalaisten joukkojen niskaan, vaan kävivät
kaupunkienkin kimppuun. Turhaan ruotsalaiset kostivat julmasti,
turhaan he hakkasivat pois kädet vangeilta, polttivat kylät, pystyttivät
hirsipuita ja tuottivat Saksasta kidutuskojeita kapinallisten
kiduttamista varten. Ken joutui uhriksi, hän kärsi ja kuoli, mutta jos
hän oli aatelismies, kuoli hän sapeli kädessä, jos oli talonpoika,
kaatui viikate kädessä. Ja ruotsalaisten veri virtasi kaikkialla Suur-
Puolassa, kansa asui metsissä, naisetkin tarttuivat aseihin.
Rangaistukset herättivät vain yhä suurempaa raivoa ja kostonhimoa.
Pellot jäivät viljelemättä, ja kauhea nälänhätä levisi yli maan, mutta
enimmän siitä kärsivät ruotsalaiset, jotka olivat kaupungeissa
suljettujen porttien takana eivätkä uskaltaneet lähteä niistä.

Myöskin heidän mielensä alkoi lannistua. Masowiassa olivat asiat

samalla kannalla. Syvällä metsissä asuvat ihmiset jättivät mökkinsä,
asettuivat väijyksiin teitten varsille ja kaappasivat muonakuormat ja
sananviejät. Pikkuaateli Podlasiessa yhtyi tuhatlukuisin joukoin
Sapiehaan. Lublin oli liittoutuneitten käsissä. Kaukaa Rusjista tuli
tataarilaisia ja näiden mukaansa pakottamina kasakoita. Kaikki olivat
jo varmoja siitä, että ennemmin tahi myöhemmin Kaarle Kustaasta ja
Ruotsin pääarmeijasta on jäljellä vain suuri hauta kansan kunniaksi
ja kauheaksi opetukseksi niille, joiden mieli tekisi hyökätä Puolan
kimppuun. Katsottiin sodan jo lähestyvän loppuaan, ja oli niitä jotka
sanoivat Kaarle Kustaan voivan pelastua ainoastaan siten, että
luovuttaa lunnaikseen Puolalle Liivinmaan.

Mutta äkkiä Kaarle Kustaan ja ruotsalaisten asema parani.

Maaliskuun 20 päivänä antautui Marienburg, jota Stenbock oli

kauan piirittänyt. Näin vapautui sieltä vahva ja hyvin varustettu
sotajoukko, joka saattoi rientää auttamaan kuningasta.

Toiselta puolen Badenin maakreivi oli saanut värvätyksi

sotajoukon ja riensi vereksin voimin jokien kulmauksessa olevaa
leiriä kohti.
 Molemmat sotajoukot etenivät lyöden pienemmät
kapinoitsijajoukot, hävittäen, polttaen ja ryöstäen. Matkan varrella
niihin liittyi ruotsalaisia joukkoja, ja ne kasvoivat kuin joki, johon yhtyy
puroja.

Sanoma Marienburgin antautumisesta sekä Stenbockin ja

maakreivin armeijain tulosta saapui pian kummankin joen rannalle
leiriytyneitten puolalaisten tietoon ja vaikutti lamauttavasti mieliin.
Stenbock oli vielä kaukana, mutta Badenin maakreivi, joka läheni
pikamarssissa, saattoi pian ilmestyä paikalle ja muuttaa koko
aseman Sandomirin edustalla.

Puolalaiset päälliköt pitivät sotaneuvottelun, ja siinä päätettiin, että

Sapieha joukkoineen jäisi vartioimaan, ettei Kaarle Kustaa pääse
pois loukusta, mutta että Czarniecki rientäisi Badenin maakreiviä
vastaan, ryhtyisi ensitilassa taisteluun, ja jos Jumala soisi hänelle
voiton, palaisi takaisin saartamaan kuningasta.

Asianmukaiset määräykset annettiin heti, ja aamulla lähdettiin

liikkeelle kaikessa hiljaisuudessa, sillä Czarniecki tahtoi, että lähtö
pysyisi salassa ruotsalaisilta. Leiripaikalle sijoitettiin aatelisten ja
talonpoikain vapaajoukkoja. Nämä virittivät tulia ja melusivat
estääkseen vihollista pääsemästä selville sotajoukon lähdöstä.

Koko armeija pysähtyi Zawadaan. Czarniecki ratsasti joukkonsa

etunenään ja antoi sen sitten kulkea ohitseen saadakseen tarkan
käsityksen sen suuruudesta ja laadusta. Tuo ohikulku oli komea
näky, ja kastellaanin sydän paisui. Niin pitkälle kuin silmä kantoi,
lainehti hevosta ja miestä, näkyi tuimia sotilaitten kasvoja ja
päiväpaisteessa välkkyviä aseita. Se ei ollut mikään tilapäisesti
koottu vapaaehtoisten joukko, vaan sodassa karaistua väkeä,
järjestettyä ja kouliintunutta ja taisteluissa niin rohkeata, että mikään
ratsuväki maailmassa ei sitä voinut vastustaa. Czarniecki tunsi tällä
hetkellä, että hän aivan varmasti näillä miehillä hajoittaa maakreivin
sotajoukon kuin akanat tuuleen, ja tuo voitonvarmuus sai hänen
kasvonsa kirkastumaan.

— Jumalan avulla voittoon! — huusi hän.

— Jumalan avulla! Voitamme! — vastasivat voimakkaat äänet.

Tuo huuto lensi joukosta joukkoon niinkuin ukkosen jyrinä kulkee

läpi pilvien. Czarniecki kannusti ratsuaan ja joukko lähti liikkeelle.

He kulkivat kuin petolintujen parvi, jotka kaukaa ovat vainunneet

haaskan. Ei koskaan oltu kuultu edes arojen tataarilaisten
keskuudessa tämmöisestä vinhasta kulusta. Sotamiehet nukkuivat
satulassa, söivät ja joivat laskeutumatta maahan. Hevosia syötettiin
käsistä. Joet, metsät, kylät, kaupungit vilahtelivat ohi. Kun talonpojat
kylissä tulivat ulos mökeistään katsomaan sotajoukkoa, oli se jo
kiitänyt ohi ja kadonnut pölypilveen. Kuljettiin yötä päivää ja levättiin
vain sen verran kuin oli välttämätöntä hevosten takia.

Viimein Kozienican luona he kohtasivat kahdeksan ruotsalaista

eskadroonaa. Laudalaiset, jotka kulkivat etumaisina, näkivät
ensimmäiseksi vihollisen ja hyökkäsivät heti kimppuun. Toiset
seurasivat jäljessä.

Ruotsalaiset luulivat olevansa tekemisissä joittenkin sissijoukkojen

kanssa ja antautuivat taisteluun avoimella kentällä. Kahden tunnin
kuluttua ei ollut jäljellä ainoatakaan elävää sielua, joka olisi voinut
mennä maakreivin luo ja ilmoittaa Czarnieckin olevan tulossa.
 Sitten puolalaiset jatkoivat matkaa entistä hurjaa vauhtia
Magnuszewin luo. Vakoojat olivat nimittäin saaneet selville, että
Badenin maakreivi koko sotajoukkoineen oli Warkassa.

Wolodyjowski lähetettiin yöllä tiedustelujoukon kanssa ottamaan

selville, miten sotajoukko oli asettunut ja mikä oli miesten lukumäärä.

Tämä retki ei ollut ensinkään mieleen Zagloballe, kun ei kuuluisa

Wisniowieckikaan koskaan ollut tämmöisiä määrännyt. Vanha soturi
murisi, mutta lähti mieluummin Wolodyjowskin kanssa kuin jäi toisten
joukkoon.

— Elimme kultaista aikaa Sandomirin edustalla, — sanoi hän

venyttäytyen satulassa. — Syötiin, nukuttiin ja katseltiin kaukaa
saarroksissa olevia ruotsalaisia, mutta nyt ei ole aikaa edes nostaa
tuoppia huulille. Tunnen minä sotataidon antiquorum: suuren
Pompeiuksen ja Caesarin, mutta herra Czarniecki keksii uusia
tapoja. On vastoin kaikkia sääntöjä tärisyttää ruumistaan satulassa
niin monta päivää ja yötä yhtämittaa. Nälkä saa jo mielikuvitukseni
nousemaan kapinaan, niin että tähdet minusta ovat kuin puuroa ja
kuu on silavanpala. Hitto vieköön tämmöisen sodan! Totisesti, olisin
valmis nälissäni syömään oman hevoseni korvat!

— Huomenna, jos Jumala suo, lepäämme voitettuamme

ruotsalaiset!

— Mieluummin ruotsalaiset kuin tämä rasitus! Oi, Herra Jumala!

Milloin suot rauhan tälle valtakunnalle ja lämpimän nurkan sekä
tuopin lämmitettyä olutta vanhalle Zagloballe?… Huoju vain, vanhus,
hevosen selässä, huoju, kunnes huojut hautaan… Eikö siellä kellään
ole nuuskaa. Pärskäyttäisin tämän uneliaisuuden pois sierainten
kautta… Kuu paistaa niin päin naamaani kuin tahtoisi katsoa vatsani
pohjaan asti, vaikka en ymmärrä mitä se sieltä etsii, missä ei mitään
ole. Hitto vieköön tämmöisen sodan, sanon sen vieläkin!

— Kun enosta kuu näyttää silavanpalalta, niin enopa voisi syödä

sen! — sanoi Roch.

— Jos söisin sinut, niin voisin sanoa syöneeni härän lihaa, mutta
pelkään, että se ateria veisi järkeni jäännöksetkin!

— Jos minä olen härkä ja eno on minun enoni, niin mikä on eno
sitten?

— Luuletko sinä teräväpäisyydessäsi, että Althaea senvuoksi

synnytti tulen, että hän istui uunin ääressä?

— Mitä se minuun kuuluu?

— Kuuluu sen verran, että jos sinä olet härkä, niin kysy ensin,
kuka
oli isäsi, äläkä etsi enoasi, sillä härkä ryösti Euroopan, mutta
Euroopan veli, joka oli hänen jälkeläistensä eno, oli silti ihminen.
Ymmärränkö?

— En ymmärrä, mutta jos olisi syötävää, niin söisin.

— Syö mikä hitto tahansa, mutta anna minun nukkua! Mitä siellä
on, herra Michal? Miksi me pysähdyimme?.

— Warka näkyy! — sanoi Wolodyjowski. — Kirkon torni loistaa

kuutamossa.

— Olemmeko kulkeneet Magnuszewin ohitse?

 — Magnuszew on jäänyt oikealle. Omituista on minusta, että joen
tällä puolen ei ole yhtään ruotsalaista joukkoa. Menkäämme tuonne
metsikköön ja seisokaamme siellä! Kenties joku tulee.

Näin sanottuaan Wolodyjowski johti joukkonsa tien vieressä

olevaan metsään asettaen sen tien kahden puolen noin sadan
askelen päähän tiestä ja käskien kaikkien olla hiljaa ja pitää suitset
kireällä, että yksikään hevonen ei hirnahtaisi.

Seisottiin kuulematta pitkään aikaan mitään muuta kuin satakielten

innokasta laulua läheisestä lepikosta. Väsyneet sotilaat alkoivat
nuokkua satulassaan, Zagloba painautui hevosen kaulaa vastaan ja
nukkui sikeästi. Hevosetkin torkkuivat. Kului tunti. Viimein
Wolodyjowskin tottunut korva erotti kavioitten kapseen kaltaisen
äänen tieltä.

— Valmiit! — huusi hän sotureilleen.

Itse hän tunkeutui tien reunaan ja katseli. Tie kimalteli kuutamossa

kuin hopeanauha, mutta siinä ei näkynyt mitään. Kavioitten kapse
kuitenkin läheni.

— Tulevat! — sanoi Wolodyjowski.

Kaikki vetivät suitset tiukalle ja pidättivät henkeään. Ei kuulunut

muuta kuin satakielten laulu lepikosta.

Mutta sitten ilmestyi tielle ruotsalainen ratsumiesjoukko, johon

kuului noin kolmekymmentä miestä. He etenivät hitaasti eivätkä
olleet rivissä, vaan vapaana joukkona. Sotamiehistä jotkut puhelivat
keskenään, jotkut laulelivat hiljalleen, sillä lämmin toukokuun yö sai
sotamiestenkin rinnat lämpenemään. He kulkivat mitään
aavistamatta niin läheltä herra Michalia, että hän tunsi hevosten
hajun ja ratsumiesten suussa palavien piippujen savun.

Viimein he katosivat näkyvistä tien käänteessä. Wolodyjowski

odotti, kunnes kavioitten kopina lakkasi kuulumasta. Sitten hän
palasi miestensä luo ja sanoi Skrzetuskeille:

— Ajakaamme heidät nyt kuin hanhet kastellaanin leiriin! Kukaan

ei saa päästä pakoon, jotta ei veisi tietoa toisille!

— Jos sen jälkeen herra Czarniecki ei anna meidän syödä ja

nukkua kylliksemme, — sanoi Zagloba; — niin kiitän häntä
palveluksesta ja palaan herra Sapiehan luo. Herra Sapiehalla kun on
taistelu, niin taistellaan, ja kun on välihetki, niin pidetään pitoja. Jos
olisi vaikka neljä suuta, niin kaikille riittäisi sopivaa työtä. Se on
johtaja!

— Älkää moittiko valtakunnan suurinta sotapäällikköä! — sanoi

Jan
Skrzetuski.

— En minä moiti, vaan minun suoleni, joita nälkä soittelee kuin

viulua.

— Ruotsalaiset saavat tanssia niiden tahdissa! — keskeytti

Wolodyjowski. — Nyt lisätkäämme vauhtia. Tahtoisin tavata heidät
sen kapakan luona metsässä, jonka ohi ajoimme mennessämme.

He jatkoivat matkaa nopeammin, mutta ei kovin nopeaan. Kuljettiin

metsässä, josta heitä ei voitu nähdä. Kun alettiin lähestyä kapakkaa,
hiljennettiin vielä vauhtia ja kuljettiin askel askelelta, että ei kuuluisi
melua. Kun oltiin jo pyssyn kantaman päässä, kuului ihmisten ääniä.
 — Siellä ne ovat! — sanoi Wolodyjowski.

Ruotsalaiset olivat todellakin pysähtyneet kapakan luo ja etsivät

sieltä jotakuta elävää olentoa saadakseen hiukan kastella
kaulaansa. Mutta kapakka oli autio. Jotkut tutkivat päärakennuksen,
jotkut taas aitan ja ulkohuoneet, toisten ulkona pidellessä etsijäin
hevosia.

Wolodyjowskin joukko lähestyi sadan askelen päähän ja alkoi

tataarilaisen puolikuun muodossa saartaa kapakkaa. Äkkiä kuului
huuto: "Allah!" ja muutamia pyssyn laukauksia. Musta rivi sotamiehiä
ilmestyi aivan kuin maasta kasvaneena. Syntyi mellakka, sapelit
kalisivat, kuului sadatuksia ja huutoja, mutta lyhyessä ajassa oli koko
asia saatettu loppuun.

Kapakan edustalle jäi muutamia miesten ruumiita ja hevosten

raatoja. Wolodyjowskin joukko jatkoi matkaansa kuljettaen
mukanaan viisikolmatta vankia.

Päivän koittaessa he saapuivat Magnuszewiin. Czarnieckin

leirissä ei kukaan nukkunut. Kaikki olivat täysin valmiina. Kastellaani
itse tuli vastaan laihana ja kalpeana rasituksesta.

— No? — kysyi hän Wolodyjowskilta. — Onko vankeja.

— On viisikolmatta.

— Ja paljonko pääsi pakoon?

— Nec nuntius cladis. Kaikki on otettu tahi tapettu.

— Teidät kelpaa lähettää vaikka mihin! Hyvä! Ottakaa ne heti

kuulusteltaviksi. Minä kuulustelen heitä itse.
 Czarniecki kääntyi menemään ja sanoi poistuessaan:

— Olkaa valmiina, sillä saattaa tapahtua, että heti hyökkäämme!

— Kuinka? — kysyi Zagloba.

— Hiljaa nyt! — sanoi Wolodyjowski.

Ruotsalaiset vangit tunnustivat heti ilman kidutusta, mitä he

tiesivät Badenin maakreivin sotavoimista, tykkien lukumäärästä,
jalkaväestä ja ratsuväestä. Czarniecki tuli hieman miettiväiseksi, sillä
hän kuuli nyt, että armeija tosin oli äsken värvätty, mutta että siihen
kuului veteraaneja, jotka olivat ottaneet osaa jo Herra tiesi miten
moneen sotaan. Joukossa oli paljon saksalaisia ja huomattava
ranskalainen osasto. Koko sotajoukko oli muutamia satoja miehiä
suurempi kuin puolalainen. Mutta sen sijaan ilmeni tunnustuksista,
että maakreivi ei aavistanutkaan Czarnieckin olevan niin lähellä,
vaan luuli puolalaisten kaikkine voimineen piirittävän kuningasta
Sandomirin luona.

Tuskin ennätti Czarniecki kuulla tämän, kun hän hypähti paikaltaan

ja huusi:

— Witowski, käskekää soittamaan lähtömerkki!

Puoli tuntia myöhemmin sotajoukko lähti liikkeelle ja kulki

raikkaassa kevätaamun ilmassa läpi kasteisten metsien ja kenttien.
Lopulta alkoi näkyä Warka, eli oikeastaan sen rauniot, sillä kaupunki
oli kuusi vuotta sitten palanut perustuksiaan myöten.

Czarnieckin sotajoukko kulki nyt avoimella paikalla eikä voinut

pysyä näkymättömänä. Ruotsalaiset huomasivatkin sen, mutta
maakreivi arveli, että jotkut partiojoukot olivat yhtyneet
peloittaakseen heitä.

Vasta kun yhä uusia lippuja ilmestyi näkyviin metsän sisältä, alkoi
kuumeinen liike ruotsalaisten leirissä. Nähtiin pienten
ratsuväkiosastojen ja upseerien liikkuvan kiireesti rykmenttien välillä.
Kirjava ruotsalainen jalkaväki alkoi keräytyä keskelle tasankoa,
rykmentit asettuivat järjestykseen puolalaisten sotamiesten nähden,
ja pian välkkyivät auringon paisteessa pitkät keihäät, joilla
jalkamiehet tavallisesti torjuivat ratsuväen hyökkäyksiä. Viimein
saapuivat rautapukuiset ruotsalaiset ratsumiehet ja asettuivat
paikoilleen siipien päihin. Tykkejä vedettiin myös kentälle. Kaikki
nämä valmistelut ja liikkeet näkyivät aivan selvästi, sillä aurinko
valaisi kirkkaasti koko seudun.

Pilica erotti toisistaan kaksi sotajoukkoa.

Ruotsalaisten puoleisella rannalla soivat torvet, pärisivät rummut

ja kajahtelivat huudot joukkojen asettuessa kiireesti järjestykseen.
Czarniecki jatkoi samaan aikaan marssiaan jokea kohti.

Äkkiä hän nelisti eversti Wasowiczin luo, jonka rykmentti oli

lähinnä jokea.

— Vanha soturi! — huudahti hän. — Kiiruhtakaa sillan luo, siellä

alas hevosten selästä ja musketit käsiin! Te saatte koko vihollisen
voiman vastaanne! Johtakaa!

Wasowicz punastui innostuksesta ja kohotti komentosauvansa.

Huutaen lähtivät hänen miehensä kiitämään ja seurasivat häntä
tomupilvessä.
 Kolmensadan askelen päässä sillasta he hiljensivät vauhtia. Kaksi
kolmasosaa joukosta hyppäsi satulasta ja juoksi siltaa kohti.

Ruotsalaiset juoksivat toiselta puolen vastaan, ja kohta alkoivat

musketit paukkua, ensin harvaan, sitten yhä tiheämpään. Savu levisi
joen ylle. Kehoitushuutoja kaikui molemmin puolin. Molempien
sotajoukkojen huomio keskittyi siltaan, joka oli puinen ja kapea,
vaikea valloittaa, mutta helppo puolustaa. Sen yli oli joka
tapauksessa ainoa mahdollisuus päästä ruotsalaisten puolelle.

Neljännestuntia myöhemmin lähetti Czarniecki Lubomirskin

rakuunat
Wasowiczin avuksi.

Mutta ruotsalaiset alkoivat nyt ampua myös tykeillä vastapäistä

rantaa. Uusia tykkejä tuotiin yhä paikalle, ja kuulat lensivät vinkuen
yli rakuunain päiden, putoilivat niitylle ja myllersivät maan.

Badenin maakreivi seisoi armeijansa takana metsän laidassa ja

katseli kaukoputkella taistelun kulkua. Mutta silloin tällöin hän otti
sen pois silmiensä edestä ja viittoi käsillään katsellen ihmetellen
esikuntaansa.

— He ovat tulleet hulluiksi! — sanoi hän. — Tahtovat anastaa tuon

sillan. Muutama tykki ja pari, kolme rykmenttiä voi sen pitää
hallussaan kokonaista armeijaakin vastaan.

Mutta Wasowicz miehineen tunkeutui yhä itsepintaisemmin

eteenpäin, mikä teki puolustuksenkin kiihkeämmäksi. Sillasta tuli
taistelun keskipiste, jota kohti lopulta koko ruotsalaisten sotavoima
vetäytyi. Sillalle suorastaan satoi rautaa ja tulta. Wasowiczin miehiä
kaatui tiheinä joukkoina, mutta samaan aikaan tuli Czarnieckilta yhä
tiukempia käskyjä, että heidän on mentävä eteenpäin.

— Czarniecki tapattaa nuo miehet! — huudahti äkkiä Lubomirski.

Myös Witowski kokeneena sotilaana huomasi, että asiat olivat

huonosti, ja vapisi kärsimättömyydestä. Viimein hän ei jaksanut hillitä
itseään, vaan nelisti Czarnieckin luo, joka kaiken aikaa jostakin
käsittämättömästä syystä oli kuljettanut joukkojaan yhä lähemmäksi
jokea.

— Teidän ylhäisyytenne! — huudahti Witowski — Verta

vuodatetaan turhaan! Tuota siltaa emme saa haltuumme!

— En minä sitä tahdokaan! — vastasi Czarniecki.

— Mitä teidän ylhäisyytenne sitten tahtoo? Mitä meidän on

tehtävä?

— Jokea kohti kaikki! Jokea kohti! Menkää paikallenne!

Ja Czarnieckin silmät alkoivat salamoida niin peloittavasti, että

Witowski puhumatta enää sanaakaan palasi paikalleen.

Armeija oli nyt kahdenkymmenen askelen päässä rannasta ja

seisoi sen suunnassa pitkänä rivinä. Ei kukaan upseereista eikä
sotamiehistä tietänyt, mitä tämä tarkoitti.

Äkkiä ilmestyi Czarniecki kuin salama rintaman eteen. Hänen

kasvonsa hehkuivat ja silmänsä säkenöivät. Hänen viittansa kohosi
tuulessa aivan kuin siiviksi hartioille, hänen hevosensa hypähteli
hänen allaan. Hän tempasi hatun päästään ja huusi kaikuvalla
äänellä joukolleen:
 — Veljet! Vihollinen turvautuu jokeen ja pilkkaa meitä! Se on tullut
yli meren tuhoamaan isänmaamme ja luulee, että me sen
puolustukseksi emme kykene uimaan tuon joen yli!

Hän paiskasi hattunsa maahan ja osoitti sapelillaan lainehtivaa

jokea. Innostus valtasi hänet, hän kohosi satulassaan ja huusi vielä
voimakkaammin:

— Se, jolle Jumala, usko ja isänmaa on rakas, seuratkoon minua!

Hän kannusti hevostaan ja syöksyi jokeen. Vesi räiskähti, mies ja

hevonen hävisivät aaltoihin, mutta olivat kohta taas veden pinnalla.

— Herrani jäljessä! — huusi Michalko, sama, joka Rudnikin luona

oli kunnostautunut.

Ja hänkin syöksyi veteen.

— Seuratkaa minua! — huusi terävällä, kuuluvalla äänellä

Wolodyjowski.

Hän oli jo vedessä, ennenkuin oli lopettanut huudahduksensa.

— Jeesus Maria! — huusi Zagloba kannustaen hevostaan.

Rykmentit painuivat toinen toisensa jälkeen veteen, joka vaahtosi

nyt maidonkarvaisena. Virta vei niitä jonkin verran syrjään, mutta
miehet kannustivat hevosiaan, ja nämä uivat kuin delfiinit ja
pärskyttivät sieraimillaan. Joki oli niin täynnä, että ihmisten ja
hevosten päistä muodostui silta, jota myöten olisi päässyt kuivin
jaloin joen yli.