Appeal dismissed: The provisions of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.53 regarding the competence of witnesses to give evidence were clear and unequivocal and did not require reinterpretation, and a judge had been entitled to conclude that the competence of a four year old child to give evidence in relation to an allegation of rape had been established.
|
Application refused: The need for a jury direction of the type from R. v Brown (Kevin) (1984) 1 B.C.C. 98970, [1984] C.L.Y. 624 would seldom occur and would not occur when what was alleged was a course of conduct. It was necessary only in those cases where two or more different ways of committing the same offence were alleged in the same count.
|
Appeal allowed: A man who had pleaded guilty to possessing criminal property, namely a stolen car, after he had test-driven it had not "obtained property", so that a confiscation order should not have been made against him.
|
Applications refused: Although the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Sch.21 para.10 was silent or unspecific in relation to cases of murder resulting from the misuse of knives, the purpose of the schedule was illustrative and not exhaustive. Accepting that the starting point would not normally be the same as that involving a firearm or explosive, nevertheless it would always be an aggravating feature in any case involving death or injury, that the death or injury had been inflicted with a knife.
|
Criminal Note of Appeal Against Conviction:- On 14 November 2008, the appellant was convicted by a majority following a jury trial at Glasgow Sheriff Court of a contravention of section 4(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, namely the cultivation of cannabis. Here the appellant appealed against his conviction on two grounds:- (1) in relation to the sheriff's answer to a question from the jury; and (2) that no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have returned a guilty verdict i ...
|
Criminal Note of Appeal Against Conviction:- On 15 January 2009, following jury trial at Ayr Sheriff Court, the appellant was convicted of assault to severe injury, permanent disfigurement and permanent impairment. The only eye witness evidence led at trial came from the complainer and a witness “Smith”, however, only the complainer identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the assault. During Smith’s evidence the procurator fiscal depute referred him to his police stateme ...
|
Criminal Note of Appeal Against Conviction:- The appellant was convicted after trial at Edinburgh High Court of two charges of being concerned in the supply of diamorphine and cannabis resin contrary to section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The appellant lodged note of appeal under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and a number of grounds of appeal were considered at the appeal hearing. A number of criticisms were made of the trial judge’s directions to t ...
|
Criminal Note of Appeal Against Conviction:- The appellant was convicted after trial on indictment at Edinburgh Sheriff Court of a charge of assault and a separate charge of robbery. The sheriff made an order in terms of section 16 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 in respect of sentences on another indictment matter, ordering that the appellant be returned to prison for a period of four months. As regards the robbery charge on the present indictment, the appellant wa ...
|
Criminal Note of Appeal Against Conviction:- On 10 August 1999 at Glasgow High Court the appellant was found guilty of a charge of rape. At trial the appellant's position was that although there had been sexual contact between him and the complainer it had been at her instigation and with her consent. Although he admitted to sexual intercourse in an interview with police, he denied in evidence that sexual intercourse had taken place, and claimed that he was under pressure during the interview. A ...
|
Criminal Note of Appeal Against Conviction:- On 29 September 2008, the appellant was convicted at Edinburgh High Court after trial of a charge of murder. At the trial the position put forward by the appellant was that he had been acting in self defence of himself, his brother and his mother. During his address to the jury, senior counsel for the appellant raised the issue of provocation as being a basis upon which the jury might reduce a verdict of guilty from one of guilty of murder to one of g ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |