Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

amendment to his/her Note of Appeal. It is understood that, since Cadder,there may have been some inconsistency in the approach of the judges to suchapplications. However, the correct approach is illustrated by Ahmad v HMAdvocate 5 , where the appellant was not permitted to introduce a Cadderground in circumstances where his/her appeal ought to have been concludedbefore Cadder. Thus, where no Cadder ground has been raised and an appealhas been, or ought to have been, concluded by the time of that decision, noleave to proceed with such a ground ought generally to be given, whether byway of a late Note of Appeal or an amendment to the grounds in an existingNote. In either case, the alternative remains that, secondly, the SCCRC couldrefer a concluded case to the High Court, thereby reviving it into a state alsonot struck at by the Arbour Hill Prison finality dictum. Were an appeal oramendment allowed to be received late or such a reference to be made, theonly decision for the Appeal Court, under the existing statutory provisions,would be whether a miscarriage of justice in the trial process had occurred.Whatever the date of any conviction and/or subsequent refusal of any appeal,that decision would have to be made in light of the “new” law as declared bythe superior court 6 .Current Law8.2.5 Prior to 1997, if a convicted person’s appeal, or application for leave toappeal, was refused, his/her remedy was to apply to the Secretary of State to5 2011 SCCR 148, Lord Reed at para 116 see generally the approach to new law and practices in Coubrough’s Extx v HM Advocate 2010 SCCR473 at para [34] – [36] under reference to R v Hanratty [2002] 2 Cr App Rep 30 Lord Woolf CJ atparas 98 - 100, Campbell v HM Advocate 2004 SCCR 220 LJ-C (Gill) at para 98; Boncza Tomaszewskiv HM Advocate 2000 SCCR 657 LJG (Rodger) at para 5357