Her Majesty's Advocate v. Thompson & Ors [2010] ScotHC HCJAC_6 (03 November 2009)

Her Majesty's Advocate v. Thompson & Ors [2010] ScotHC HCJAC_6 (03 November 2009)

The general minute pronounced by the sheriff was competent to continue the cases without calling them in court, and the amendment to section 66(1) did not abolish the concept of sittings; the instances did not fall.

Citation
[2010] ScotHC HCJAC_6
Parties
Complainer: Her Majesty's Advocate; First Respondent: David Samuel Thompson; Second Respondent: David Kinnaird; Second Respondent: Christopher Barney
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Bills of Advocation / Appeal
Outcome
Bills of Advocation passed; sheriff's decision overturned.
Legal Topics
Criminal Procedure, Peremptory Diet, Court Sittings, Continuation of Diets
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Peremptory Diet Court Sittings Continuation of Diets

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Advocate

Complainer

David Samuel Thompson

First Respondent

David Kinnaird

Second Respondent

Christopher Barney

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bills of Advocation / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to call cases in court on peremptory diet causes the instance to fall
  2. 2 Whether amendment to section 66(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 abolished the concept of sittings

Ratio Decidendi

The general minute pronounced by the sheriff was competent to continue the cases without calling them in court, and the amendment to section 66(1) did not abolish the concept of sittings; the instances did not fall.

Court Disposition

Bills of Advocation passed; sheriff's decision overturned.

Orders

  • The instances in the indictments did not fall; cases remain live and are continued.