DOCSLIB.ORG

Advanced Criminal Litigation (DPLP) | University of Glasgow

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Advanced Criminal Litigation (DPLP) | University of Glasgow 09/27/21 Advanced Criminal Litigation (DPLP) | University of Glasgow Advanced Criminal Litigation (DPLP) View Online 3. Wotherspoon v PF Glasgow 2017 HC JAC 69 (no date). 27 May 1976(c) W. Green & Son Limited (no date) Yates v HMA 1977 S.L.T. (Notes) 42. Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016 asp 22 (Scottish Act) Arrangement of Act (no date) Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016 asp 22 (Scottish Act). Allan v Patterson 1980 JC 57 (no date). Bath v HMA 1995 SCCR 323 (no date). Black v Megeary 1974 JC 43 (no date). Brown, A. L. and Wheatley, J. F. (2014) Wheatley’s Road traffic law in Scotland. Fifth edition. Haywards Heath: Bloomsbury Professional. Brown, P. et al. (2017) Wilkinson’s road traffic offences. Twenty-eighth edition. Edited by K. McCormac. London: Sweet & Maxwell/Thomson Reuters. Available at: https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.gla.ac.u k%2Fshibboleth&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2 FBrowse%2FHome%2FBooks%2FWilkinsonRoadTraffic%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue. Brown v PF Ayr 2016 SAC (crim) 32 (no date) Brown v Procurator Fiscal, Ayr. Campbell v Vannet 1998 SCCR 207 (no date) Campbell (Craig) v Vannet. Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Act 1993 (repealed) (no date). Chalmers v HMA 1954 JC 66 (no date) Chalmers (John) v HM Advocate. Chambers v DPP 2012 EWHL 2157 (no date) Chambers v DPP. Communications Act 2003 c. 21Part 2 NETWORKS, SERVICES AND THE RADIO SPECTRUM (no date) Communications Act 2003 c. 21. Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 asp 13 (Scottish Act)Part 2 CRIMINAL LAW Threatening or abusive behaviour (no date) Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 asp 13 (Scottish Act). Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (no date). 1/4 09/27/21 Advanced Criminal Litigation (DPLP) | University of Glasgow Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (no date). Crown copyright (no date) Harvie v Ludrecious 2008 HCJAC 65, Max Ludriecus v Procurator Fiscal, Edinburgh. (c) Scottish Council of Law Reporting (no date a) Manuel v HMA 1958 J.C. 41. (c) Scottish Council of Law Reporting (no date b) Moorov v HMA 1930 J.C. 68, *68 Moorov v H. M. Advocate. (c) W. Green & Son Limited (no date) McLellan v HMA 1992 SLT 991, *991 McLellan v H.M. Advocate. DPP v Collins 2006 UKHL 40 (no date) DPP v Collins. Gilmour v HMA 1994 SCCR 133 (no date) Gilmour (Joseph Gary) v HM Advocate (Evidence). Griffiths, D. B. (1994) Confessions. Edinburgh: Butterworths. Harris v HMA 2009 HC JAC 80 (no date). Hatcher v Harrower 2010 HC JAC 92 (no date). Jolly v HMA 2013 SCCR 511 (no date). Jones v Carnegie 2004 JC 136 (no date). Kearney v HMA 2007 HCJAC3 (no date) Scottish Case Digests. Lees v HMA 2012 HCJAC 57 (no date). L.J.-C. Ross, Lords Hunter, Brand Jan. 24, 1986(c) Scottish Council of Law Reporting (no date) Kerr v HMA 1986 JC 41, *41 Kerr v H.M. Advocate. L.J.-G. Emslie, Lords Cameron, Dunpark.Nov. 17, 1983.(c) Scottish Council of Law Reporting (no date) Khaliq v HMA 1984 J.C. 23, *23 Khaliq v H.M. Advocate. LJ-G Hope, Lords Allanbridge, Brand 22nd October 1993(c) Scottish Council of Law Reporting (no date) Stobo vs HMA 1994 J.C. 28, *28 Stobo v HM Advocate. L.J.-G. Hope, Lords Allanbridge, Kincraig 3rd November 1992(c) Scottish Council of Law Reporting (no date) McDonald V Scott 1993 J.C. 54, *54 McDonald v Scott. LJ-G Hope, Lords Cowie, Mayfield 16th February 1994(c) Scottish Council of Law Reporting (no date) Mackie v HMA 1994 JC 132, *132 Mackie v HM Advocate. L J-G Rodger , L J-C Ross , Lord McCluskey , Lord Sutherland and Lord Gill .28 January 1997(c) Scottish Council of Law Reporting (no date a) Smith v Lees 1997 JC 73, *73 Smith v Lees. L J-G Rodger , L J-C Ross , Lord McCluskey , Lord Sutherland and Lord Gill .28 January 2/4 09/27/21 Advanced Criminal Litigation (DPLP) | University of Glasgow 1997(c) Scottish Council of Law Reporting (no date b) Smith v Lees 1997 JC 73, *73 Smith v Lees. Lord Carloway Lord Clarke Sheriff Principal Bowen QC16 April 2009Crown copyright (no date) Donnelly v HMA 2009 SCCR 512, Stephen Donnelly v Her Majesty’s Advocate. ‘Lord Hope’s Lecture’ (no date). Available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech_090612.pdf. Lord Justice-Clerk (Gill) Sheriff Fletcher01 December 2004, 22 July 2003(c) Scottish Council of Law Reporting (no date) Anderson v Griffiths 2005 JC 169, *169 Anderson v Griffiths. Lord Justice-Clerk. Lord Strachan. Lord Wheatley Jan. 27, 1967(c) Scottish Council of Law Reporting (no date) Grieve v McLeod 1967 J.C. 32, *32 Grieve v Macleod. Lord Justice-General . Lord Sands . Lord Blackburn Oct. 19, 1933(c) Scottish Council of Law Reporting (no date) Hamilton v HMA 1934 J.C. 1, *1 Hamilton v H. M. Advocate. Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Bonomy Lady Cosgrove28 April 2011(c) Scottish Council of Law Reporting (no date) Richardson v Dalgarno 2012 JC 160, *160 Richardson v Dalgarno. ( Lords Avonside, Grieve and Dunpark)9 November 1978(c) W. Green & Son Limited (no date) Hartley v HMA 1979 S.L.T. 26, *26 Hartley v H.M. Advocate. Lords Osborne , Macfadyen and Marnoch 9 October 2007(c) W. Green & Son Limited (no date) Murphy v HMA 2007 S.L.T. 1079, *1079 Murphy v HM Advocate. Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (no date). Murphy v HMA 1995 SCCR 55 (no date) Murphy (Maurice) v HM Advocate. Paterson v Harvie 2014 HC JAC 87 (no date a). Paterson v Harvie 2014 HC JAC 87 (no date b). Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (no date). Ralston v HMA 1987 SCCR 467 (no date) Ralston v HM Advocate. Road Traffic Act 1988 (no date a). Road Traffic Act 1988 (no date b). Road Traffic Act 1988 (no date c). Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (no date a). Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (no date b). Rooney v Brown 2013 SCCR 334; 2013 HC JAC 57 (no date). 3/4 09/27/21 Advanced Criminal Litigation (DPLP) | University of Glasgow Shiels, R. S. (2013) Offensive weapons. Edinburgh: W. Green/Thomson Reuters. Smith v Donnelly 2002 JC 65 (no date). The Lord Justice-General (Hope), Lords Mayfield and Kirkwood 27 June 1990(c) W. Green & Son Limited (no date) Lindsay v Smith 1991 SLT 896, *896 Lindsay v Smith. The Lord Justice General (Rodger), The Lord Justice Clerk (Cullen), Lords Kirkwood, Coulsfield and Gill 23 January 1998(c) W. Green & Son Limited (no date) Fox v HMA 1998 SLT 335, *335 Fox v HM Advocate. ( The Lord Justice-General, The Lord Justice-Clerk, Lords Fleming, Moncrieff, Pitman, Wark, and Carmont.)12 November 1937(c) W. Green & Son Limited (no date) Morton v HMA 1938 SLT 27, *27 Morton v H.M. Advocate. White v HMA 1991 JC 137 (no date). Williamson v Withers 1981 SCCR 214 (no date) Scottish Criminal Case Reports. Wilson v Macphail 1991 SCCR 170 (no date) Wilson v MacPhail. 4/4.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (2017) Clarifying the Law on Assisted Suicide? Ross V Lord Advocate
    Chalmers, J. (2017) Clarifying the law on assisted suicide? Ross v Lord Advocate. Edinburgh Law Review, 21(1), pp. 93-98. (doi:10.3366/elr.2017.0391) This is the author’s final accepted version. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/130144/ Deposited on: 17 October 2016 Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow http://eprints.gla.ac.uk This article has been accepted for publication by Edinburgh University Press in the Edinburgh Law Review, and is expected to appear in the January 2017 issue. The Review is available online at http://www.euppublishing.com/loi/elr. Clarifying the Law on Assisted Suicide? Ross v Lord Advocate Gordon Ross, who died in January 2016,1 was a retired television producer who prior to his death resided in a care home, living with diabetes, heart problems, Parkinson’s disease and peripheral neuropathy.2 In Ross v Lord Advocate, Lord Carloway outlined the dilemma which Mr Ross faced in the following terms:3 He anticipates that there will come a time when he will not wish to continue living, as he will find his infirmity and consequent dependence on others intolerable. He would require assistance to commit suicide because of his physical state. He is apprehensive that anyone who assisted him would be liable to prosecution. He considers that he may require to take action to end his life himself, sooner than he would otherwise wish to, in order to avoid living on in an undignified and distressing condition.
    [Show full text]
  • In Scots Law
    1 When the Exception is the Rule: Rationalising the ‘Medical Exception’ in Scots Law 2 I. INTRODUCTION No medical practitioner who performs a legitimate medical operation on a patient (in the course of competently carrying out the duties of their profession)1 commits a delict or a criminal offence.2 This is so in spite of the fact that to infringe the bodily integrity of another person is plainly both a crime3 and a civil wrong.4 Notwithstanding the fact that the patient may desire the operation, the ‘defence’ of consent cannot possibly justify the serious injuries intentionally inflicted in the course of an operation to effect a kidney transplant, or to amputate a limb, or even to insert a stent, since these procedures are highly invasive and effect irreversible changes to the physicality of the patient(s).5 The ‘medical exception’ has consequently and consistently been invoked by legal commentators when considering cases of invasive surgery, or procedures which involve serious wounding.6 Since consent is no defence to serious assault,7 this exception to the general rule that to inflict such is to commit a crime must be justified by means other than an appeal to the 1 ‘Proper’ medical treatment is a prerequisite: Margaret Brazier and Sara Fovargue, Transforming Wrong into Right: What is ‘Proper Medical Treatment’?, in Sara Fovargue and Alexandra Mullock, The Legitimacy of Medical Treatment: What Role for the Medical Exception, (London: Routledge, 2016), p.12 2 See, generally, Sara Fovargue and Alexandra Mullock, The Legitimacy of Medical Treatment: What Role for the Medical Exception, (London: Routledge, 2016), passim.
    [Show full text]
  • SB 15-02 Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill
    The Scottish Parliament and Scottish Parliament Infor mation C entre l ogos. SPICe Briefing Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill 08 January 2015 15/02 Kathleen Robson and Sarah Harvie-Clark The Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill seeks to legalise assisted suicide for people with terminal and life-shortening illnesses and conditions. This briefing outlines the current law in Scotland in relation to assisted dying as well as the policy background to the Bill. It also explores public opinion and the frequency of different types of assisted dying in the UK. It then goes on to detail the Bill’s provisions as well as some of the issues raised in the Health and Sport Committee’s call for written evidence. CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 ASSISTED DYING TERMINOLOGY............................................................................................................................ 5 THE CURRENT LAW ON ASSISTED SUICIDE .......................................................................................................... 8 THE CRIMINAL LAW IN SCOTLAND ...................................................................................................................... 8 An overview .........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Assisted Dying and Suicide in Other Jurisdictions
    HS/S4/15/5/A HEALTH AND SPORT COMMITTEE AGENDA 5th Meeting, 2015 (Session 4) Tuesday 17 February 2015 The Committee will meet at 9.45 am in the Robert Burns Room (CR1). 1. Decision on taking business in private: The Committee will decide whether its consideration of its approach to NHS Boards Budget Scrutiny should be taken in private at future meetings. 2. Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill: The Committee will take evidence on the Bill at Stage 1 from— Patrick Harvie MSP, member in charge of the Bill; Andrew Mylne, Head of Non-Government Bills Unit; Louise Miller, senior solicitor, Office of the Solicitor to the Scottish Parliament; Amanda Ward, adviser to Patrick Harvie. 3. Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill (in private): The Committee will consider the main themes arising from the oral evidence heard earlier in the meeting. Eugene Windsor Clerk to the Health and Sport Committee Room T3.60 The Scottish Parliament Edinburgh Tel: 0131 348 5410 Email: [email protected] HS/S4/15/5/A The papers for this meeting are as follows— Agenda Item 2 Written Submissions HS/S4/15/5/1 PRIVATE PAPER HS/S4/15/5/2 (P) PRIVATE PAPER HS/S4/15/5/3 (P) SPICe Briefing HS/S4/15/5/4 PRIVATE PAPER HS/S4/15/5/5 (P) Written Submissions HS/S4/15/5/1 James Chalmers Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill James Chalmers Regius Professor of Law at the University of Glasgow Response to Question Paper: The Position under Existing Scots Criminal Law 1. Thank you for your email of 28 January inviting me to answer several questions regarding the criminal law of Scotland in relation to assisted suicide.
    [Show full text]
  • The Structure of Assault in Scots Law: a Historical and Comparative Perspective
    Barclay, Grant (2017) The structure of assault in Scots law: a historical and comparative perspective. LL.M(R) thesis. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/8569/ Copyright and moral rights for this work are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This work cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Enlighten:Theses http://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] The Structure of Assault in Scots Law: A Historical and Comparative Perspective Grant Barclay LL.B. (Hons) Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the Degree of LL.M. (by Research) School of Law College of Social Sciences University of Glasgow October 2017 Abstract This thesis reviews both the history and current comparative landscape of the law of assault with a view to determining the optimal approach to be taken by Scots law in structuring its crime of assault. There is very little in the current literature offering either kind of review, and equally there has been very little analysis of the desirability of a single offence versus other methods of structuring assault or non-fatal offences against the person generally. These issues are therefore addressed in this paper, starting with an extensive examination of the legal history surrounding breaches of physical integrity from the seventeenth century right up to the present day.
    [Show full text]
  • Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill Response to Question Paper: the Position Under Existing Scots Criminal Law 1
    Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill Response to Question Paper: The Position under Existing Scots Criminal Law 1. Thank you for your email of 28 January inviting me to answer several questions regarding the criminal law of Scotland in relation to assisted suicide. I have done so below, as fully as possible in the time available. Although this is a relatively lengthy note, the core conclusion is a simple one: the scope of the criminal law in this area cannot be stated with any degree of certainty whatsoever. Introductory comments 2. The initial difficulty with answering the questions raised by the committee is that the most fundamental issue arising in this context is unclear. Remarkably, it is not known whether or not suicide is itself a criminal offence in Scots law. This uncertainty colours the entire debate thereafter, as follows: • If suicide is itself a criminal offence in Scots law, then the criminal liability of anyone who assists in a suicide falls to be determined by applying the general principles of “art and part liability” recognised by the law – that is, the same principles which govern the liability of anyone who is alleged to have assisted in the commission of a criminal offence. The position would be similar to that in English law before the Suicide Act 1961 where, because suicide was “self-murder and therefore a felony… a person who aids, abets, counsels or procures another to commit suicide [was] guilty of murder” (Criminal Law Revision Committee: Second Report (Suicide) (Cmnd 1187: 1960) para 3). • If suicide is not a criminal offence in Scots law, then liability for assisted suicide could arise only when the person who has provided assistance can in law be said to have caused the death of another person, and to have done so with the degree of fault required for guilt of either murder or culpable homicide.
    [Show full text]
  • Appeal Court, High Court of Justiciary [2019] Hcjac 50
    APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY [2019] HCJAC 50 HCA/2019/245/XC Lord Justice General Lord Menzies Lord Brodie OPINION OF LORD CARLOWAY, the LORD JUSTICE GENERAL in APPEAL FOLLOWING THE REFERENCE BY THE SCOTTISH CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION by LISTON CRAIG PACITTI Appellant against HER MAJESTY’S ADVOCATE Respondent Appellant: Findlater; Faculty Services Limited (for George Mathers & Co, Aberdeen) Respondent: Edwards QC, AD; the Crown Agent; 9 July 2019 [1] On 17 December 2017, at the sheriff court in Dundee, the appellant pled guilty to a charge of culpable and reckless conduct between 3 July 2013 and 7 December 2014 at shops in Arbroath and Montrose by supplying multiple quantities of new psychoactive substances, 2 which he knew would cause a danger to health and, in consequence, he injured one person and endangered the lives of ten others. [2] On 27 February 2018 the appellant’s co-accused, namely Paul Brocklehurst, pled guilty at a subsequent first diet to an indictment in similar terms, but over a 2 year period, involving only one shop in Perth and supplies to ten adults and two children, with injuries to seven of the adults and one of the children. [3] On 24 April 2018 the sheriff sentenced both accused to 4 years and 6 months imprisonment, which he had reduced from a starting point of 6 years. In sentencing the accused the sheriff said that there was “nothing to choose between them” despite the different circumstances. The two accused had basically been conducting the same business in conjunction with each other, but from different shops.
    [Show full text]
  • Comment on Chapter 5 Assisted Dying and the CPS RA Duff
    In Child JJ & Duff RA (eds.) Criminal Law Reform Now: Proposals & Critiques. London: Hart Publishing, pp. 155-163. https://www.bloomsburyprofessional.com/uk/criminal-law-reform-now-9781509916771/ Comment on Chapter 5 Assisted Dying and the CPS R A Duff (J Child and R A Duff, eds, Criminal Law Reform Now, Hart 2018, 155-63) As Andrew Sanders makes depressingly clear,1 those who are considering whether to ask another for help in ending their lives, or whether to respond to such requests by providing such help, face a still uncertain, and unsatisfactory, legal position. If they provide assistance to another’s suicide, their conduct satisfies the definition of a criminal offence—an offence definition that allows no room for a defence based on, for instance, the earnestness and rationality of the request to which they respond;2 if what they do amounts to causing the requester’s death, their conduct satisfies the definition of criminal homicide.3 Someone seeking such assistance might think that the law that criminalises it violates the ‘right to respect for … private and family life’ declared in Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): the ECHR has held that ‘the right of an individual to decide how and when to end his life … is one aspect of the right to respect for private life’,4 and English courts have accepted that the formal criminalisation of assisting suicide ‘represents an interference with’ that right.5 But the courts will not help such a person by declaring that law to be incompatible with the ECHR (or with the English Human Rights Act 1998): for Article 8(2) of the ECHR allows interference with that right if it ‘is necessary in a 1 A Sanders, ‘The CPS, Policy-Making and Assisted Dying: Towards a “Freedom” Approach’, ch 5 of this volume.
    [Show full text]
  • Prosecution Policy on the Sexual Transmission of Infection
    CROWN OFFICE AND PROCURATOR FISCAL SERVICE INTENTIONAL OR RECKLESS SEXUAL TRANSMISSION OF, OR EXPOSURE TO, INFECTION Contents: ♦ Introduction ♦ The Legal Position in Scotland ♦ Proof of Culpable and Reckless Conduct; (a) The victim has contracted the infection from the accused (b) Knowledge (c) Recklessness ♦ Medical and Scientific Considerations; Use of experts ♦ Determining whether Prosecution is in the Public Interest; Factors tending against prosecution Factors tending in favour of prosecution ♦ Process to be followed where Proceedings are Raised ♦ Legal Position in England and Wales ♦ Overview of Guidance ♦ Conclusion Introduction This guidance sets out how prosecutors should deal with cases involving an allegation of intentional or reckless sexual transmission of, or exposure to, infection which has serious, potentially life threatening consequences for the person infected. In developing this guidance, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) has consulted with the public health sector and has benefited substantially from their input and expertise. Their advice has been greatly appreciated, however, the content of this policy statement remains the responsibility of the COPFS. There have been very few prosecutions in Scotland involving intentional or reckless transmission of, or exposure to, sexually transmitted infection. Although previous prosecutions have involved HIV infection, this policy is not restricted to HIV and applies to any sexual infection which could have serious, potentially life threatening consequences for the person infected. Annex A provides details of previous prosecutions. The prosecution of Mark Deveraux in 2010, for the culpable and reckless transmission of, and exposure to, the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) attracted some concern from the public health and HIV sector due to the prosecution of charges where there was no transmission of the infection to the victim.
    [Show full text]
  • Vincent Thomas Lunny
    A SCOTTISH PERSPECTIVE ON THE DEFENCE OF INTOXICATION by VINCENT THOMAS LUNNY LL.B., University of Glasgow, 1995 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAWS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Faculty of Law) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1997 © Vincent Thomas Lunny, 1997 in presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. l--a.cxs.tfu r>eprarffiTTeTU of L_a-W The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date 21* A*ysjc 1^?' DE-6 (2/88) 11 Abstract The relationship between alcohol and violence is one that has caused concern for centuries. Conflict between public policy issues and the application of criminal theory has meant that the debate as to how to deal with the individual who commits acts of violence while severely intoxicated is far from settled. Canada typifies the modern position with continuing disagreement between those who favour a protectionist stance which denies, in whole or in part, a defence based on intoxication and those who feel that to allow a defence is technically correct within the framework of existing criminal theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol6 Prelims Indexes 1..12
    JC 223 GEMMELL v HM ADVOCATE No 31 Lord Justice-Clerk (Gill), 20 December 2011 Lord Osborne, Lord Eassie, [2011] HCJAC 129 Lady Paton and Lord Wheatley James Kelly Gemmell, Appellant—Ogg (Solicitor-advocate) Paul Robertson, Appellant—Brown David Alexander Gibson, Appellant—Paterson (Solicitor-advocate), Goodfellow (Solicitor-advocate) Peter Stephen McCourt, Appellant—Brown Euan McWilliam Ross, Appellant—Shead, CM Mitchell David John Forsyth Hart, Appellant—CM Mitchell Charlene Elisabeth Ogilvie, Respondent—Keenan (Solicitor-advocate) Her Majesty’s Advocate, Respondent and Appellant—Ferguson QC, A-D Justiciary – Sentence – Discounting in respect of guilty plea – Appropriate approach to sentence discounting – Whether discounting applies to the public protection element in a sentence – Whether discounting applies to imposition of a period of disqualification or penalty points – Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (cap 46), sec 196 Section 196(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (cap 46) provides that, in determining what sentence to pass on, or disposal or order to make in relation to, an offender who has pled guilty to an offence, a court shall take into account the stage in proceedings at which intention to plead guilty was indicated and the circumstances in which the indication was given. In passing sentence on such an offender, the court shall state whether having taken account of those matters the sentence imposed is different from that which the court would otherwise have imposed and, if not, the reasons why it is not. Section 196(2) provides that where the court is passing sentence on an offender under sec 205B(2) of the Act and the offender has pled guilty to the offence for which he is being sentenced the court may after taking into account the matters mentioned in subsec (1) pass a sentence of less than seven years’ imprisonment or detention, but any such term of imprisonment or period of detention shall not be less than five years, two hundred and nineteen days.
    [Show full text]
  • Mcbratney, Luke (2018) Perverting the Course of Justice. LL.M(R) Thesis
    McBratney, Luke (2018) Perverting the course of justice. LL.M(R) thesis. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/81721/ Copyright and moral rights for this work are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This work cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Enlighten: Theses https://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] Perverting the course of justice Luke William McBratney, LL.B, Dip.LP Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of LL.M by Research School of Law College of Social Sciences University of Glasgow September 2018 Abstract This thesis is concerned with the Scottish offence of perverting the course of justice. Perverting the course of justice is a well-established and commonly charged offence, but one which is poorly understood and whose development has been the subject of sceptical treatment in the major work on Scottish criminal law. This thesis traces that development, from the institutional writers to the modern day, and asks whether it was in accord with the norms of Scots law. It also asks whether that development has resulted in an offence, the elements of which can be described with confidence, or not.
    [Show full text]