Criminal Appeal by Stated Case by Procurator Fisca
The appeal here related to three separate complaints in each of which the respondent had been charged with having committed a breach of the peace at a football match, racially aggravated in terms of section 96 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In each case, at the conclusion of the Crown evidence, there had been a submission, in terms of section 160 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, that there was no case to answer on the basis that the evidence was insufficient to establish the c ...
|
In order to prove an offence of outraging public decency the prosecution had to show that (1) the act was of such a lewd, obscene or disgusting character that it outraged public decency, and (2) the act took place in a public place and that it was capable of being seen by two or more persons present even if they had not actually seen it.
|
In order to prove an offence of outraging public decency the prosecution had to show that (1) the act was of such a lewd, obscene or disgusting character that it outraged public decency, and (2) the act took place in a public place and that it was capable of being seen by two or more persons present even if they had not actually seen it.
|
The fact that an offence under s. 5(1)(b) Firearms Act 1968 was strict liability did not infringe Art.6 ECHR.
|
This was the first prosecution under s.5 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.
|
Where evidence was admitted in relation to conduct not charged, but identical to the indictment charges, it could not be admitted under s.98 CJA 2003 as it was to do with the alleged facts of the offence and was linked in time. However, it was admissible under s101 CJA 2003. Also deals with the requirement to give a Brown direction.
|
Case dealing with a breach of procedural rules (admission of co-D’s bad character) and judges’ case management powers (in this instance the Judge refused a late application, finding it to be an ambush).
|
D's computer was seized pursuant to a civil search order. On that computer was found illegal material. It was argued by D that the material (highly objectionable images of children) should not be passed to the police as they were obtained via compulsory powers of seizure and thereby interfered with D's right not to incriminate himself. Held: There was no privilege in the material seized and it should be passed to the police.
|
D was serving a determinate sentence. His parole application was delayed for a period of over 8 months and it was argued that he was therefore entitled to damages for interference with his article 5 right to liberty. Held (reversing the lower court): D was entitled to damages.
|
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction & Sentence - Moorov Doctrine
On 13 May 2004 the appellant was convicted by majority at the High Court at Glasgow of four charges, namely, (1) lewd, indecent and libidinous practices and behaviour; (2) a contravention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976, section 5; (3) a contravention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976, section 4; and (4) lewd, indecent and libidinous practices and behaviour. On 10 June 2004, the appellant was sentenced to a total period of seven years imprisonment, five years being in respect of char ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |