Appeal Against Conviction:
After the jury was empanelled the sheriff was informed that one of the jurors knew one of the Crown witnesses and that he had formerly been a police officer. A discussion took place on this matter within the sheriffs chambers outwith the presence of the appellant. The appellant maintains that this was a breach of section 92 (1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. A further submission relating to the juror is that the appellant had been deprived of trial before an independent and impar ...
|
Appeal Against Conviction:
Counsel for the appellant submitted (1) that there was insufficient evidence to entitle the jury to convict the appellant in the absence of any evidence from which it could be inferred that the appellant knew that a knife would be used or that having realised that a knife had been used she continued to participate in the attack; and (2) that the trial judge misdirected the jury as to the evidential significance of the police interview given by Isobel Black because having said that the evidence ...
|
Appeal Against Conviction/Devolution Minute:
The devolution minute alleged that in proceeding against him the respondent was acting in a way which was incompatible with his right to a fair trial within a reasonable time under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that the proceedings were therefore ultra vires of the respondent in terms of section 57(2) of the Scotland Act 1998.The sheriff heard debate on the devolution minute and dismissed it. Consideration as to whether there was any infringement of the appellants Conv ...
|
Case considers whether a plea of guilty is a conditional admission that can be reconsidered in the light of a subsequent decision of the court or in the light of a subsquent verdict in the trial of another party on the same charge.
|
Speeding Cameras:
Appellant who was the named driver of the vehicle in questioin had been required in terms of section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to name the driver of the vehicle at the time of the offence. The appellant replied but only to the effect that the police were wasting his time. This appeal concerns whether where a police officer has required someone to identify the driver of a vehicle and has had a refusal the correct procedure is to explain to that person that a failure to answer is an offence ...
|
Ds were jointly charged on 3 counts with 1) conspiracy to manufacture prohibited weapons; 2) conspiracy to sell or transfer prohibited weapons; and 3) conspiracy to possess firearms with intent to enable others to cause fear or violence. Having expressly taken nine years as a starting point and having given them "full credit" for their pleas of guilty, their sentence was for concurrent terms of six years’ imprisonment on each count. This was held to be unduly lenient.
|
Ds were jointly charged on 3 counts with 1) conspiracy to manufacture prohibited weapons; 2) conspiracy to sell or transfer prohibited weapons; and 3) conspiracy to possess firearms with intent to enable others to cause fear or violence. Having expressly taken nine years as a starting point and having given them "full credit" for their pleas of guilty, their sentence was for concurrent terms of six years’ imprisonment on each count. This was held to be unduly lenient.
|
There was no duty of care to be owed by the police to a victim or witness in relation to their activities in the investigation of a suspected crime.
|
When D’s confession was admitted under s.76(2) PACE 1984, the judge had to direct the jury that if they concluded that the confession was obtained by oppression or other improper methods they must ignore it.
|
There was no duty of care to be owed by the police to a victim or witness in relation to their activities in the investigation of a suspected crime.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 |