Litigants should not be regarded as "service users", and the proposed civil court fee rises are wholly unjustified, according to the Glasgow Bar Association in its response to the Scottish Government.
Adding its voice to those including the Law Society of Scotland and Faculty of Advocates who have protested at the proposed 24% rise in civil court fees to make the courts self financing, the GBA replies: "People do not have a choice about whether to go to court if they want their rights vindicated. The idea that a litigant is some kind of 'service user' is misconceived."
The response comments: "There is a huge number of Scots who are insufficiently poor to qualify for legal aid but who will nevertheless struggle to find the money to pay the court fees that are being demanded. Many may simply not bother, which effectively deprives them of a remedy against wrongdoers."
It adds that the proposed £282 for a day's proof in the sheriff court is high, "Particularly since the party who has to attend court for a proof is frequently short changed."
That comes about as it frequently happens that less than a court day is actually available to hear a case. Why, the GBA asks, should someone who loses an hour of regular court time to hearing of other business and who has to come back on a second day to conclude as a result, have to pay a second day's hearing fee?
"If civil court users are to be regarded as consumers then fairness demands that they are entitled to get their money's worth and to compensated, not only reimbursed, if they do not", the response states.
"SCTS [Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service] should be meeting the bill for the second day. And what of the expense of having witnesses and a shorthand writer come back for another day? Somebody has to pay for this. SCTS should be meeting that cost too, since they are the cause of it. And it is unreasonable to expect a litigant to be paying the full £282 for four hours in court when that fee is supposed to cover five hours. It should be reduced by £56.40 for every hour that the court cannot hear the proof. The Government cannot have it both ways; people are entitled to the service that they are being required to pay for."
