![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article would benefit from a description of how judges are appointed to the Court. Grover cleveland ( talk) 07:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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.