Procurator Fiscal Paisley v AK & Anor [2012] ScotHC HCJAC_44 (03 April 2012)

Procurator Fiscal Paisley v AK & Anor [2012] ScotHC HCJAC_44 (03 April 2012)

Bills of advocation are competent notwithstanding the existence of a statutory appeal route under section 74(1); there is no breach of Article 6 ECHR equality of arms; the Crown is not barred by acquiescence from seeking review.

Citation
[2012] ScotHC HCJAC_44
Parties
Complainer: K Donnelly, Procurator Fiscal, Paisley; First Respondent: AK; Second Respondent: AR
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Bills of Advocation / Preliminary Hearing on Competency
Outcome
respondents' pleas as to competency repelled; averments in answer 9.1 deleted; bills continued for hearing on substantive merits
Legal Topics
Competency of Bills of Advocation, Statutory Appeal Rights, Article 6 ECHR, Equality of Arms, Acquiescence
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Competency of Bills of Advocation Statutory Appeal Rights Article 6 ECHR Equality of Arms Acquiescence

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K Donnelly, Procurator Fiscal, Paisley

Complainer

AK

First Respondent

AR

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bills of Advocation / Preliminary Hearing on Competency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether bills of advocation are competent where statutory appeal under section 74(1) Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 exists
  2. 2 Whether the Crown is barred from bringing bills of advocation due to delay or acquiescence
  3. 3 Whether the procedure breaches Article 6 ECHR equality of arms

Ratio Decidendi

Bills of advocation are competent notwithstanding the existence of a statutory appeal route under section 74(1); there is no breach of Article 6 ECHR equality of arms; the Crown is not barred by acquiescence from seeking review.

Court Disposition

respondents' pleas as to competency repelled; averments in answer 9.1 deleted; bills continued for hearing on substantive merits

Orders

  • Respondents' pleas as to competency repelled
  • Averments in answer 9.1 deleted