HM Advocate v McAllister [2014] ScotHC HCJ_111 (07 October 2014)

HM Advocate v McAllister [2014] ScotHC HCJ_111 (07 October 2014)

The motions were refused because the evidence of threats and background was not relevant to the issues for determination under the Proceeds of Crime Act, and there was insufficient evidence of a real and current risk to the accused's safety to justify derogation from open justice or to make an order under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

Citation
[2014] ScotHC HCJ_111
Parties
Prosecutor: Her Majesty’s Advocate; Accused: Jason McAllister
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeds of Crime Determination / Pre Determination Hearing on Procedural Motions
Outcome
Both motions refused
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Contempt of Court, ECHR Articles 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, Court Powers to Exclude Public, Relevancy of Evidence, Assumptions Under Proceeds of Crime Act
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Human Rights Open Justice Contempt of Court ECHR Articles 2, 3, 6, 8, 10 Court Powers to Exclude Public Relevancy of Evidence +1 more

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty’s Advocate

Prosecutor

Jason McAllister

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceeds of Crime Determination / Pre Determination Hearing on Procedural Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exclude the public during the accused's evidence
  2. 2 Whether the court should prohibit publication of material linking the accused to a particular individual under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981
  3. 3 Whether the proposed evidence regarding threats and background is relevant to the issues for determination under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The motions were refused because the evidence of threats and background was not relevant to the issues for determination under the Proceeds of Crime Act, and there was insufficient evidence of a real and current risk to the accused's safety to justify derogation from open justice or to make an order under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

Court Disposition

Both motions refused