Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government
Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government
emedy is provided for by law” 49 . Despite some authority to the contrary, itwas not until recently regarded as a remedy available to review interlocutorsof the High Court, whether at appellate or first instance level 50 . It is verymuch a remnant from a bygone age before criminal procedures were regulatedby the detailed statutory provisions which exist today. Indeed, it comes froman era before the creation of the right of appeal from first instance High Courtverdicts in 1926 51 and the introduction of the SCCRC in 1997.8.1.21 The 1995 Act provides 52 , in relation to appeals in solemn proceedings, that:“every interlocutor and sentence pronounced by the High Court…shall be final and conclusive and not subject to review by any courtwhatsoever…”.It might have been thought that this was quite clear. A decision of the HighCourt (i.e. one with a quorum of at least three) cannot be overturned byanother decision of the same court. It is final. But in Hoekstra 53 the courtappeared to overturn one of its own decisions. Although the facts there werevery special, this was, and is, in some quarters perceived as authority to usethis procedure to challenge any decision of the High Court in solemn appeals.Attempts to discourage this have been made 54 , but applications for the use ofthe power continue to be lodged; designed to challenge the merits of finaldecisions of the Court, whether directly or under the guise of identifying some49 Anderson v HM Advocate 1974 SLT 239, LJG (Emslie) at 24050 Hume ii 508; Alison: Practice of the Criminal Law i. 23 referring to inferior courts51 now including a right to appeal from preliminary rulings with leave under the 1995 Act s 7452 s 124 see Mitchell v HM Advocate [2011] HCJAC 35, LJG (Hamilton) at para 1253 Hoekstra v HM Advocate (No 2) 2000 JC 38754 Beck Petitioner 2010 SCCR 222342
fundamental nullity, after the refusal of an appeal or leave to appeal 55 . Thisundermines the finality of decisions taken by the High Court at appellate level.8.1.22 A petition to the nobile officium is an additional potential avenue of appeal insummary cases. There is no equivalent of the finality provision 56 for summaryprocedure. This is, no doubt, because it was previously accepted that adecision on an appeal to the High Court from an inferior court was final.Nevertheless, its absence has been used to permit the High Court to review itsown decisions in summary appeals 57 . Thus, for example, where leave toappeal has been refused by the High Court itself, an unsuccessful applicantmay try to have that decision reversed by an identically composed court (i.e.with the same quorum). This has actually been achieved in one case 58 , albeitin circumstances widely regarded as incompetent 59 . Indeed, it is not unknownfor a party, who has been refused leave to appeal by stated case, to attempt tocircumvent that decision by lodging a Bill of Suspension and a petition to thenobile officium 60 .55 Uttley v HM Advocate [2009] HCJAC 9556 1995 Act s 12457 Allan, Petnr 1993 SCCR 686, dealing with an admittedly incompetent sentence imposed by the HighCourt on appeal58 Akram v HM Advocate 2010 SCCR 3059 Beck (supra) para 4260 see the extraordinary proceedings in Shepherd v PF (Dornoch) [2010] HCJAC 114, cf 1995 Act s184343
- Page 294 and 295: trial judge, in determining whether
- Page 296 and 297: Other JurisdictionsSubmissions at T
- Page 298 and 299: 7.3.13 In Australia 29 :“…if th
- Page 300 and 301: Consideration7.3.18 There is a view
- Page 302 and 303: 300
- Page 304 and 305: at least in connection with witness
- Page 306 and 307: with the complainer’s consent. By
- Page 308 and 309: Other jurisdictions7.4.7 The positi
- Page 310 and 311: evidence against him (i.e. presumab
- Page 312 and 313: fact on the other. This is especial
- Page 314 and 315: 7.4.17 The common law can certainly
- Page 316 and 317: 314
- Page 318 and 319: diet. Alternatively, a court may re
- Page 320 and 321: 7.5.8 If an accused does not give e
- Page 322 and 323: If the accused does not give eviden
- Page 324 and 325: England and Wales, Ireland, South A
- Page 326 and 327: Wales, be regarded at least as an a
- Page 328 and 329: is so even if seasoned offenders ma
- Page 330 and 331: inquisitorial systems, what occurs
- Page 332 and 333: SCCRC. The Review believes that, in
- Page 334 and 335: jurisprudence, it must be recognise
- Page 336 and 337: Current Law8.1.5 A person convicted
- Page 338 and 339: introduced. Thus, as had been indic
- Page 340 and 341: Late Appeals (solemn cases)8.1.12 A
- Page 342 and 343: Summary cases8.1.16 In summary proc
- Page 346 and 347: ConsiderationSolemn Appeals8.1.23 T
- Page 348 and 349: why the application is late 66 . Fu
- Page 350 and 351: case may be, by advocation against
- Page 352 and 353: e achieved by amendment of section
- Page 354 and 355: power ought to be retained on the b
- Page 356 and 357: 354
- Page 358 and 359: Thus, where there is a change of la
- Page 360 and 361: have his/her case referred back to
- Page 362 and 363: 8.2.9 It was perceived that there w
- Page 364 and 365: interests of justice, should be con
- Page 366 and 367: conviction be quashed. This applies
- Page 368 and 369: for undermining the important role
- Page 370 and 371: References to the High Court8.2.25
- Page 372 and 373: 370
- Page 374 and 375: 372Annex A
- Page 376 and 377: Annex AFiscal) to assess these case
- Page 378 and 379: Annex Aconviction, were the rule of
- Page 380 and 381: 378Annex A
- Page 382 and 383: Annex BRight of access to a lawyer
- Page 384 and 385: Annex BRight of access to a lawyer
- Page 386 and 387: Annex BPolice questioning after cha
- Page 388 and 389: 386Annex C
- Page 390 and 391: 388Annex D
- Page 392 and 393: Annex ELondon - 18 th -19 th May 20
fundamental nullity, after the refusal of an appeal or leave to appeal 55 . Thisundermines the finality of decisions taken by the High Court at appellate level.8.1.22 A petition to the nobile officium is an additional potential avenue of appeal insummary cases. There is no equivalent of the finality provision 56 for summaryprocedure. This is, no doubt, because it was previously accepted that adecision on an appeal to the High Court from an inferior court was final.Nevertheless, its absence has been used to permit the High Court to review itsown decisions in summary appeals 57 . Thus, for example, where leave toappeal has been refused by the High Court itself, an unsuccessful applicantmay try to have that decision reversed by an identically composed court (i.e.with the same quorum). This has actually been achieved in one case 58 , albeitin circumstances widely regarded as incompetent 59 . Indeed, it is not unknownfor a party, who has been refused leave to appeal by stated case, to attempt tocircumvent that decision by lodging a Bill of Suspension <strong>and</strong> a petition to thenobile officium 60 .55 Uttley v HM Advocate [2009] HCJAC 9556 1995 Act s 12457 Allan, Petnr 1993 SCCR 686, dealing with an admittedly incompetent sentence imposed by the HighCourt on appeal58 Akram v HM Advocate 2010 SCCR 3059 Beck (supra) para 4260 see the extraordinary proceedings in Shepherd v PF (Dornoch) [2010] HCJAC 114, cf 1995 Act s184343