HM Advocate v RV & Ors [2016] ScotHC HCJAC_103 (21 November 2016)

HM Advocate v RV & Ors [2016] ScotHC HCJAC_103 (21 November 2016)

The trial judge failed to properly consider available procedural remedies and did not adequately balance the public interest against potential unfairness; the circumstances did not warrant desertion of the diet as the issues could have been remedied by adjournment or procedural steps.

Citation
[2016] ScotHC HCJAC_103
Parties
Complainer: Her Majesty’s Advocate; First Respondent: RV; Second Respondent: PO; Third Respondent: JM; Fourth Respondent: KS
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Trial Judge's Decision to Desert Diet and Refusal to Extend Timebar
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Desertion of Diet, Timebar Extension, Fair Trial, Procedural Fairness

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty’s Advocate

Complainer

RV

First Respondent

PO

Second Respondent

JM

Third Respondent

KS

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Trial Judge's Decision to Desert Diet and Refusal to Extend Timebar

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in deserting the diet pro loco et tempore
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to extend the statutory timebar periods

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge failed to properly consider available procedural remedies and did not adequately balance the public interest against potential unfairness; the circumstances did not warrant desertion of the diet as the issues could have been remedied by adjournment or procedural steps.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Bills of Advocation passed
  • Timebar period of 12 months extended until 29 April 2016