In Martin & Miller v HMA UKSC 2010. The UKSC, by a majority of 3:2, agreed with the High Court that the changes made by Holyrood to road traffic offences were within the legislative competence of Holyrood.
In a judgment published on 3rd March 2010 Lord Hope (The Deputy-President of the Supreme Court and an eminent Scottish Judge) discussed section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998 and legislative consent motions early in his judgment.
The Supreme Court had to decide whether or not a Holyrood Act of 2007 - that increased the sentence that a sheriff could impose under summary prosecution for driving while disqualified - was competent.
UK Supreme Court
In Martin & Miller v HMA UKSC 2010. The UKSC, by a majority of 3:2, agreed with the High Court that the changes made by Holyrood to road traffic offences were within the legislative competence of Holyrood.
In a judgment published on 3rd March 2010 Lord Hope (The Deputy-President of the Supreme Court and an eminent Scottish Judge) discussed section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998 and legislative consent motions early in his judgment.
The Supreme Court had to decide whether or not a Holyrood Act of 2007 - that increased the sentence that a sheriff could impose under summary prosecution for driving while disqualified - was competent.