Criminal Appeal Against Conviction
The appellant was convicted at Paisley Sheriff Court on 12 November 2004 by a unanimous verdict of the jury of assault to severe injury and breach of bail conditions, and on 14 December 2004 he was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment, 3 months of which were attributable to the bail aggravation. Leave to appeal against conviction was granted on appeal to the second sift judges on 25 May 2005. The single ground of appeal was:- "that there was a miscarriage of justice in respect that the jury, having ...
|
Note of appeal against conviction & sentence, appe
The convictions by temporary sheriffs here took place, and the sentences were imposed, prior to the commencement of the Scotland Act 1998. It was not disputed that, had the convictions taken place and the sentences been imposed after the commencement of the Scotland Act, they would have been invalid on the ground that a temporary sheriff was not an independent and impartial tribunal as guaranteed by article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the prosecutions to conviction and sente ...
|
Note of appeal against conviction & sentence, appe
The convictions by temporary sheriffs here took place, and the sentences were imposed, prior to the commencement of the Scotland Act 1998. It was not disputed that, had the convictions taken place and the sentences been imposed after the commencement of the Scotland Act, they would have been invalid on the ground that a temporary sheriff was not an independent and impartial tribunal as guaranteed by article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the prosecutions to conviction and sente ...
|
Sentencing for breach of a sex offender order should follow the principles set down in ASBO cases. If the breach does not involve any real or obvious risk to the public, a community penalty may be appropriate, although repeated breaches will necessarily involve a custodial sentence. Any breach which does create a real or obvious risk the public must inevitably be treated more seriously and multiple or repeated breaches may well justify sentences that might otherwise have been considered far high ...
|
D had been acquitted of murder. Following that acquittal he confessed to that murder and was subsequently convicted of perjury. Following a change in the law (CJA 2003) he was retried for murder. He argued that he would not have made such an admission if he had known that he might face retrial (the law not being on the statute book at the time) and therefore it was not in the interests of justice for him to be retried. Held: The public would rightly be outraged were the exception to the double j ...
|
Where D enters an unequivocal guilty plea which the court accepts, he is "proved guilty according to law" within the meaning of Article 6(2) ECHR. The presumption of innocence ceases to apply and he can be sentenced on the basis that he has been proved guilty.
|
The rules governing disclosure in civil actions and criminal trials could not be applied to extradition proceedings. A judge who had reason to believe that an abuse of process might have occurred in extradition proceedings should call upon the requesting authority or state to provide the necessary information or evidence for determining whether such an abuse had occurred. If fairness required that that material should be disclosed, but the requesting authority or state would not agree to such a ...
|
The judge, in the course of Ds’ trial for two counts of conspiracy connected with the laundering of fuel and the laundering of the proceeds of that primary conspiracy, had been entitled to permit the prosecution to adduce and rely on evidence which contained a series of witness statements and documentary evidence arising out of separate investigations by HM Customs & Excise.
|
A sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment for burglary was justified. There had been a forced night-time entry and D had seriously injured the victim. The fact that a co-accused received a lesser sentence than was merited was not reason to lower the sentence in this case.
|
Where a count under section 5 Firearms Act 1968 attracting sentence has been properly included on an indictment and there is no defence to it, a plea should be taken. That is because Parliament has identified s.5 for a minimum sentence under s.51A. It was not appropriate for counsel to invite the court to order that the count lie on the file and at the same time invite the court in some way to adopt the minimum sentence nonetheless.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |