Talk:High Court of Justiciary

Scotland High‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Edinburgh Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Edinburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Edinburgh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EdinburghWikipedia:WikiProject EdinburghTemplate:WikiProject EdinburghEdinburgh
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Appointment process

This article would benefit from a description of how judges are appointed to the Court. Grover cleveland (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Court sitting in the Netherlands

The article currently says: "The High Court of Justiciary once sat apparently outwith Scotland, at Zeist in the Netherlands during the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial (see Scottish Court in the Netherlands). However, the court precincts were temporarily made British territory under Scottish Law for the duration of this case."

I find the statement in the second sentence quite astonishing, and there are no references cited in support. It seems to me that the Netherlands ceding territory to the UK, even only temporarily, would be a very far-reaching and unheard-of act, and I doubt the Dutch government would be willing to go that far; in any case, I would love to see evidence. It seems to me (and believe me, I'm relatively knowledgeable in international law) that this idea has its roots in the very common, but still inaccurate, misbelief that embassies are the territory of the guest state rather than the host state. They are not - host state jurisdiction over the premises of foreign embassies is limited and host state authorities may not enter the embassy without the guest state's consent, but they are still host state territory. Anyway, provide some evidence, please. If no references show up within a reasonable period of time, I'll delete the statement. SchnitteUK (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your analogy of foreign embassies is spot on. It appears quite clear to me from the terms of the British–Dutch agreement (which can be found here) that while the court held a peculiar status, that status was nevertheless of a court located within the Netherlands and subject (with important exceptions) to ordinary Dutch law. However, I don't know enough about this subject to write anything in detail. I've accordingly edited the quoted paragraph down to the following:

The High Court of Justiciary has also sat once outside Scotland, at Zeist in the Netherlands during the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial, as the Scottish Court in the Netherlands.

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]