NOTICE UNDER SCHEDULE 6 OF THE SCOTLAND ACT 1988 IN HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. ROBERT McINTOSH [2000] ScotHC 24 (25th February, 2000)

NOTICE UNDER SCHEDULE 6 OF THE SCOTLAND ACT 1988 IN HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. ROBERT McINTOSH [2000] ScotHC 24 (25th February, 2000)

Article 6 ECHR does not apply to confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 in the manner contended by the accused; the statutory assumptions in Section 3(2) are reasonable and do not violate the presumption of innocence.

Citation
[2000] ScotHC 24
Parties
Prosecutor: Her Majesty's Advocate; Accused: Robert McIntosh
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Post Conviction, Preliminary Hearing on Devolution Issue Prior to Confiscation Order Proof
Outcome
Declarator refused; case to proceed to proof.
Legal Topics
Drug Trafficking, Confiscation Orders, Presumption of Innocence, Article 6 ECHR, Devolution Issues
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Drug Trafficking Confiscation Orders Presumption of Innocence Article 6 ECHR Devolution Issues

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Advocate

Prosecutor

Robert McIntosh

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Post Conviction, Preliminary Hearing on Devolution Issue Prior to Confiscation Order Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights apply to confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995?
  2. 2 Are the statutory assumptions in Section 3(2) of the 1995 Act compatible with the presumption of innocence under Article 6(2) ECHR?

Ratio Decidendi

Article 6 ECHR does not apply to confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 in the manner contended by the accused; the statutory assumptions in Section 3(2) are reasonable and do not violate the presumption of innocence.

Court Disposition

Declarator refused; case to proceed to proof.

Orders

  • Declarator sought by the accused refused.
  • Proof continued to 23 March.