PRG News

Home Reports - How they will affect you?

From 1st December 2008, Home Reports have been needed for every property put on the market. The Scottish Government's view is that the general public should have detailed information about the condition and value of the property, before an offer is made and expenditure incurred by any purchaser. The Home Report also includes an energy efficiency report, which is to advise purchasers on how to save money on energy bills, and provide a better appreciation of the environmental impact of individual homes.
Home Report Contents
The Home Report will comprise three separate documents:-
1. Property Questionnaire
The property questionnaire is completed by the seller of the home, where required with the assistance of their solicitor/estate agent. It contains information about the home which is useful for both buyers and surveyors.
2. The Single Survey
The Single Survey contains an assessment by a Surveyor of the condition of the home, a valuation element and an accessibility audit for people with particular needs.
3. The Energy Report

The Energy Report contains an assessment by the Surveyor of the energy efficiency of the home and its environmental impact. It will also recommend ways to improve its energy efficiency.
At PRG we have systems in place to ensure that your Home Report is available, at the same time as your home is first put on the market. Our systems are fully compliant with  legislation, are easy to use and accessible to all.
As the seller, our clients will complete the property questionnaire, with our help wherever needed. The single survey and energy report is completed by a Surveyor, instructed by us on your behalf.
We create an online Home Report for your property, once all the elements are complete. This can then be viewed by potential purchasers on request online, though a hard copy version can be ordered if required. We ensure that you have an adequate supply of hard copy versions to have on hand for viewers.
If you would like further information about how the system operates, please do not hesitate to contact our Property Managers Mairi Mitchell  or any of our solicitors in any of our offices.

You can't fling peices out a twenty storey flat

You can’t fling pieces out a twenty storey flat.

As the great Matt McGinn song testifies you can't fling a jelly piece from a twenty storey flat, however, we know that the Scottish criminal courts have previously considered the throwing of a hamster from a top flat window and in Feburary this year Edinburgh sheriff court considered the throwing of a microwave oven from a tenth floor flat.

Lea Farquharson threw the microwave oven from the tenth floor flat as her partner, Allan Addison, returned to the building following an earlier argument. This was done in a bid to "scare him". The oven smashed metres away from Mr Addison who was unhurt.

Ms Farquharson pleaded guilty to culpably and recklessly throwing a microwave oven to the danger of the public on 27 June 2009. Having explained that the action was taken in a "moment of madness" influenced by excessive consumption of alcohol, Ms Farquharson was sentenced to six months imprisonment by Sheriff Scott. He said,

"I am satisfied no sentence other than a custodial sentence is appropriate given the gravity of the offence and the potential danger to the public.

"Somebody could have come out of the basement of the block of flats and it could have been disastrous."

On 7th June 2010 the Aberdeen Evening Express reported that Paul Black was found guilty of launching items with disregard to the consequences and to the danger of people below, as well as breach of the peace, and was fined £200.

Mr Black threw a variety of items out of the top flat window including weights and a vacuum cleaner. The vacuum cleaner was reported to be "dangling from the top-floor flat’s window because it was still plugged in".  

Police Interviews Incompatible with Human Rights?

The implications for Scots law of the European Court of Human Rights decision in Salduz v Turkey (Application No. 36391/02, 27 November 2008) that the presence of a lawyer at police interviews of criminal suspects is essential to avoid infringement of Article 6 ECHR (fair trial), came before the UK Supreme Court at the end of May 2010; and even before the case (Cadder v HMA) was officially decided (the due date is 20 October), the Crown Office instructed change in police interviewing practices.

Interim guidelines say that suspects being interviewed should be offered access to a solicitor for a private consultation, in person, in advance of the police interview.  If the accused or the solicitor wishes the solicitor to be present during the interview then access should be allowed unless, once again, it is considered that there are compelling reasons why this should not be permitted. Any such reason should be clearly noted and detailed in full.  

The guidelines also make clear that they are not intended to pre-empt the decision of the Supreme Court and are issued with the intention of protecting prosecutions pending the decision of the Supreme Court.  However, it appears pretty clear that the Supreme Court indicated that it was against the Crown’s arguments in the Cadder case, and that the unusually long period before the court’s decision is announced is to be explained by its willingness to give the Crown (and the Scottish Government) time to work out how to adapt the Scottish system to a new world. 

The big question is whether the court’s decision will be prospective only, or will be held to affect all convictions already achieved using the evidence from police interviews conducted without the presence of lawyers.  If the decision has retrospective effect (as one would expect), then there may be questions about emergency legislation to deal with it.  One possibility is that such retrospective legislation would have to be passed in the Westminster Parliament since, unlike the Scottish Parliament, it is not absolutely constrained in this regard by Convention rights.  But another possibility is that generally criminal appeals have to be made within three months of the final finding of guilt; so, if the guidelines work as intended, by the time the Supreme Court issues its decision, most convictions procured using police interview evidence will no longer be appealable. 

There are also issues about the compatibility of the Crown Office guidelines with solicitors’ professional code of conduct, and about legal aid provision.  This is producing no doubt interesting discussions between the Justice Secretary, the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Aid Board. 

Assuming that the Supreme Court does rule against the present law and overturn the previous seven-judge decision of the Criminal Appeal Court (MacLean v HM Advocate 2009 HCJAC 97), there may be interesting implications for other parts of Scots criminal law, evidence and procedure, not least the rule requiring corroboration.  One of the defences of the existing law on police interviews is that no conviction could be procured on such evidence alone; something else would be required to corroborate it.  Given the importance of police interviews to the obtaining of many if not most convictions, the police and prosecution authorities may well feel that, if that possibility is lost or significantly reduced after the Supreme Court’s ruling, a different approach to the rules of evidence is going to be required.  England provides the obvious model: no corroboration needed there, but suspects have access to lawyers in all interviews.