That is quicker than expected although there may be a bit of a wait for a judgement. Believe it or not, the Supreme Court has a 2 month summer recess from the 31st July to the 1st October as can be seen here.

In other news today, RoadSense lost a legal battle. This one almost slipped under the radar. As we all know, RoadSense does not have to pay the government's legal fees for the last legal challenge (the taxpayer does). They do however have to pay some of the legal fees for their very first challenge as the cap wasn't quite as generous. RoadSense apparently went to the Court of Session to try to get that cap lowered so they didn't have to pay as much. Yesterday, that attempt was rejected.

Hang on! It says Judiciary of England and Wales. How can a matter under the jurisdiction of Scots Law be taken to a court of English Law?

Ask Alex Salmond, he has plenty to say on a court in England making decisions on cases of Scottish law.
It's because of this excuse for a court that we are having to give a murderer from Elgin a retrial, even though he had exhausted all his means of appeals through the Scottish courts.

The Supreme Court also replaced the House of Lords as the court of last resort for Scotland for civil cases. Scottish matters are heard by the Scottish Supreme Court Justices under Scot's Law.

Unlike England and Wales it has no jurisdiction over Scottish criminal matters, unless they are directly related to devolution.

Yes, Walton's case would have gone to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords prior to the formation of the Supreme Court.

The one odd thing about civil appeals from Scotland is that they virtually have an automatic right to be heard in the Supreme Court. As long as two counsel certify that the appeal is reasonable, it will be heard. Such cases in England and Wales require permission to appeal from the lower court that gave the verdict or special permission from the Supreme Court (which isn't always granted). This is one of the points that I believe annoys Salmond as, to some people, it suggests that the Scottish Courts are not competent enough to make legal decisions.

As for the potential for an "appeal" to European Courts, I'm not sure that it's so clear cut. As far as I'm aware, the Supreme Court may refer the case to Europe for an opinion if it feels necessary but the final ruling is made by the Supreme Court. I may have that wrong though.

Walton has already taken his case to the United Nations which wasn't really reported in the media but I believe cost taxpayers a fair bit. Needless to say, as the report in the link shows, he lost that battle too.

Hes taking this to the UN? is he off his head totally?. I mean cmon, He doesnt even live close to the new route!. How far can this idiot be allowed to go?. Holding the city to ransom, I really hope this fails in an utter dismal epic fail!. Id be tempted to build a long slip road.link road type thing right through the centreline of his living room

Off topic slightly but in the case of Fraser v HM Advocate, the only reason it ended up in front of the Supreme Court was because the Court of Criminal Appeal in Scotland were incompetent! Had they applied the legal test properly, they would've reached the same judgment. In fact had the Crown Office done their job properly in the first place and disclosed the evidence before the original trial, it's quite likely Fraser would never have been convicted in the first place. The non-disclosed evidence was crucial - the original trial Judge told the jury they were obliged to acquit Fraser if they were unsure about whether the rings were not present in the bathroom during the original search.

Not to mention that the entire Scottish legal system couldn't see how not having a solicitor present during police interviews undermined the right to a fair trial. Other ECHR cases held that denying legal advice could undermine the right to a fair trial. The outcome would have been the same in Strasbourg, only there wouldn't have been anyone with experience of Scots Law involved (unlike the UKSC where the two Scottish judges usually both sit on all Scottish cases and the other judges defer to their expertise).

The Scottish legal system needs to take a long hard look at themselves before criticising the Supreme Court.

I wouldn't place a bet on the hearing being heard in July yet. This morning, the P&J reported that Walton says he needs more time to prepare his case.

Because his plan to ruin the CPOs won't work with a July hearing?

Come on! Isn't there any kind of rules to stop them taking the piss? Surely if you try to appeal you must accept the date given.

Walton is asking for our money for his case again. The story in the actual paper notes that Walton confirms that he would have to pull out of the court case if he wasn't given a PEO. The government intends to challenge the application for a PEO, according to the P&J.

This anti roads imbecile should be made to do a year's community service cleaning dogsh*t off pavements for all the delays he has caused this vital project.

Only a year???????? I think I mentioned before about sending him to Enceladus

It is disgraceful that someone has disrupted this long-awaited and desperately needed scheme.

There's been yet another twist today which jeopardises the July dates that were set for the court hearing.

The Supreme Court made a ruling which once again caps Walton's costs should he lose this third legal challenge. This time his costs will be capped at £5,000.

The surprise was that the ruling also capped the Scottish Government's costs should Walton win meaning that the taxpayer wouldn't have to pay all of Walton's legal fees if he does win (P&J article).

This afternoon (after that P&J article was written), Walton said that this ruling was unfair and he is considering appealing to the European Court of Justice against the decision to cap the Government's costs. That would mean that the AWPR hearing in the Supreme Court could not go ahead until this new appeal is resolved

The legal system is a joke.

He was wittering on on Stv North News and BBCScotland news that it was unfair that they would have two Advocates and he would only have one - what is more unfair is the general public being held to account by this one lunatic.The news shows have not as yet given airtime to the advocates for the bypass so thats unfair!

I believe the appropriate word to use here is "pillock". He sounds like a spoilt child stomping his foot repeatedly because he hasn't got his own way.

Apparently Walton is pressing ahead with the action. He has a new legal team including a junior counsel who will work for free.

Since the government knows what he is doing, can't they issue him some kind of "stop taking the piss!" card to get him to stop? If not, why can't the people, by finding out where he lives and having a nice pleasant conversation with him over his home fence en masse. I'm sure if several hundred happy motorists got together and had a nice friendly cup of tea with him at his place of work, and told him all light hearted tales of sitting in traffic jams for hours, he might learn something about his actions...or even ask him about his efforts if you find him when he is out shopping perhaps...He might just enjoy the reasoned debate.

If he wants to see 'power to the people' in action, perhaps he aught to witness the reality and engage with community he seeks to impose his will on?

All in a light hearted and friendly manner, natch.

Hopefully the CPOs can be extended. I hear Transport Scotland are considering ways to do this, including through legislation. Good for them.