Jack Brown, who was removed from office as a sheriff by the First Minister last year, denies the alleged delicts (torts). However, the question before the Supreme Court was whether the pursuer’s case against the Scottish government, represented in the case by the Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain KC, is relevant and could proceed.
The pursuer, who cannot be identified, complained about four incidents in 2018, three of which she alleged were assaults. In the first, she was due to appear in court to conduct a case before the sheriff but was unable to start due to technical difficulties. She apologised to Sheriff Jack Brown in the reception area. He told her not to worry and placed his hand on her cheek without her consent. In the second incident, he asked his bar officer to tell the pursuer he wished to see her in his chambers, where he hugged her without her consent. In the third incident, he approached her on a train and placed his hand on her thigh, again without her consent. The fourth incident happened after the pursuer reported the sheriff’s conduct, when he FaceTime called her but she did not answer.
Jack Brown denies these allegations.
Delivering the judgment, in X v Lord Advocate [2025] UKSC 44, Lords Reed and Burrows, dismissed the appeal. They agreed with the Court of Session that the relationship between a sheriff and the Scottish Government is not akin to employment so there can be no vicarious liability of the Crown.
Lords Reed and Burrows said: ‘There is no control by the Scottish Government over the performance by sheriffs of their judicial functions.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=28793f10_1)
