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.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in deserting the diet pro loco et tempore
- 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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment