Though it would be unfair to compare the Scottish judicial system to a comic opera, its objective, like that of W S Gilbert's Mikado, surely must be "To let the punishment fit the crime". The introduction in March this year of a reformed summary justice system was intended to achieve this objective for a number of low-level offences that had previously clogged the country's sheriff and district courts. With more than 300,000 cases reported to procurators fiscal each year, victims and witnesses were frequently waiting around a year before cases came to court. Following the recommendations of the McInnes Report on summary justice, MSPs agreed that those accused of minor offences would be offered the option of paying a penalty of up to £300, plus compensation to the victim where appropriate, and in return avoid court and a criminal record. Streamlined and speedy justice is in the interests of victims, witnesses and society. One of the advantages of this change was that it would free up capacity in sheriff courts to deal with more serious summary cases, carrying sentences of up to a year's imprisonment.

However, in recent days a number of those involved in the delivery of Scottish justice have contacted The Herald, suggesting that the new system is not working as intended. The most serious allegation is that rather than being restricted to low-level offences, such as minor assaults, shoplifting and vandalism, it is being used by serious and violent offenders to duck court appearances and avoid a criminal record. These concerns have been raised not only by lawyers, who could be said to have a vested interest in cases going to court, but also victims, charities, sheriffs and clerks.

Others have defended the reforms, arguing that most of those using them would have ended up paying similar fines eventually. The Crown Office says around 12% of new cases have been diverted in this way, in line with projections.

Nevertheless, as The Herald reports today, in a particularly disturbing case, a fiscal fine was used for a domestic assault, without even informing the victim, and in another, where a young woman was glassed in the face, it was handled the same way.

At the very least, there seems to be a puzzling discrepancy between the Crown Office figures and anecdotal experience in some sheriff courts, including Edinburgh, Airdrie and Glasgow, where individuals have claimed a dramatic decrease in new cases. If summary justice is being applied inconsistently, this undermines the integrity of the judicial system by turning it into a geographical lottery.

The Crown Office claims the reform is about "the delivery of justice for victims and witnesses". This is not the reality in some of the cases in The Herald's report. The new system may save court time but at the cost of losing the important deterrent effect of a salutary night in the cells and court appearance before a stern-faced sheriff. And because the new system is based on an "opt out" arrangement, the accused is deemed guilty if he or she fails to respond to the letter, effectively removing the presumption of innocence. There is also concern about the seriousness of some of the cases now being dealt with as summary complaints in sheriff courts. It is certainly in the public interest that serious crimes are dealt with more speedily but it should not be at the cost of going soft on lesser crimes. At the very least, strict limits on which offences are suitable for diversion from court and for summary complaints must be stipulated and adhered to.