Stewart v Secretary of State for Scotland 1998 Appellant's Argument - Essay ExampleAppellant contends that the narrower interpretation of the word “inability” is “supported by earlier legislation inasmuch as it produced a comprehensive code for sheriffs principal who demitted or was removed from office because of physical or mental infirmity”. He further asserts that if the wider interpretation is to accrue “an anomalous result would be reached”. He clarified that the word “inability” is not intended to mean “unfit for duty due to behavioral infirmity” as used in his case but to describe the natural consequence of not being able to perform a sheriff’s duty due to health reasons or disability. Appellant likewise assert that the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk erred and committed procedural lapses in their investigation. He asserts that he was not properly informed of the actual charges against him and that the charge was “inability” rather “than misbehavior” or “defect in character”.

tewart v Secretary of State for Scotland 1998 Appellant's Argument Essay

 

+ Recent posts