Her Majesty's Advocate v. Campbell & Ors [2004] ScotHC 48 (09 August 2004)

Her Majesty's Advocate v. Campbell & Ors [2004] ScotHC 48 (09 August 2004)

Surveillance of the second accused as an associate was authorised; evidence obtained was lawfully obtained and admissible. Even if there was an irregularity, it would be excused due to genuine error and public interest outweighing exclusion.

Citation
[2004] ScotHC 48
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty's Advocate; First Accused: Robert Campbell; Second Accused: John Wallace; Third Accused: Joseph Wright; Fourth Accused: Kevin Michael Connolly; Fifth Accused: Patricia Slaven; Sixth Accused: Kirsty Campbell
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial (trial Within a Trial on Admissibility of Evidence)
Outcome
Objection overruled; evidence admitted.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Police Surveillance, Misuse of Drugs Act, Regulation of Investigatory Powers (scotland) Act, Article 8 ECHR, Fair Trial
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Admissibility of Evidence Police Surveillance Misuse of Drugs Act Regulation of Investigatory Powers (scotland) Act Article 8 ECHR Fair Trial

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

Parties

Her Majesty's Advocate

Prosecution

Robert Campbell

First Accused

John Wallace

Second Accused

Joseph Wright

Third Accused

Kevin Michael Connolly

Fourth Accused

Patricia Slaven

Fifth Accused

Kirsty Campbell

Sixth Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial (trial Within a Trial on Admissibility of Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police surveillance of the second accused was authorised under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000
  2. 2 Whether evidence obtained from such surveillance is admissible
  3. 3 Whether any irregularity in surveillance infringed the accused's right to a fair trial

Ratio Decidendi

Surveillance of the second accused as an associate was authorised; evidence obtained was lawfully obtained and admissible. Even if there was an irregularity, it would be excused due to genuine error and public interest outweighing exclusion.

Court Disposition

Objection overruled; evidence admitted.

Orders

  • Evidence relating to recovery of controlled drugs from the second accused is admissible.