Cobanoglu, Petition to the Nobile Officium [2012] ScotHC HCJAC_35 (08 March 2012)

Cobanoglu, Petition to the Nobile Officium [2012] ScotHC HCJAC_35 (08 March 2012)

The petition was refused because section 124(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 makes the relevant interlocutor final and not subject to review, and no extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances justifying the nobile officium were present. The allegations of apparent bias were unfounded, as the judge's prior involvement did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, and the petition disclosed no grounds of appeal or procedural vice.

Citation
[2012] ScotHC HCJAC_35
Parties
Petitioner: Huseyin Cobanoglu; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Petition to the Nobile Officium / Final Judgment on Petition
Outcome
petition refused
Legal Topics
Nobile Officium, Finality of Criminal Appeals, Apparent Bias, Article 6 ECHR, Extension of Time to Appeal
Criminal Law Appellate Procedure Nobile Officium Finality of Criminal Appeals Apparent Bias Article 6 ECHR Extension of Time to Appeal

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Huseyin Cobanoglu

Petitioner

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition to the Nobile Officium / Final Judgment on Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to grant an extension of time to appeal was amenable to review under the nobile officium
  2. 2 Whether the involvement of judges previously engaged in the case gave rise to apparent bias or denial of a fair hearing under article 6 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether section 124(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 precludes review of final interlocutors by the nobile officium

Ratio Decidendi

The petition was refused because section 124(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 makes the relevant interlocutor final and not subject to review, and no extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances justifying the nobile officium were present. The allegations of apparent bias were unfounded, as the judge's prior involvement did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, and the petition disclosed no grounds of appeal or procedural vice.

Court Disposition

petition refused

Orders

  • Petition to the nobile officium refused.