Her Majesty's Advocate v. Murray (Known As Keiran Kerrigan) [2008] ScotHC HCJ_01 (19 February 2008)

Her Majesty's Advocate v. Murray (Known As Keiran Kerrigan) [2008] ScotHC HCJ_01 (19 February 2008)

Where the Crown does not accept the factual basis of a plea in mitigation but cannot actively dispute it with evidence, the sentencing judge should not accept the mitigation ex parte and must offer the accused the opportunity to lead evidence in a proof in mitigation. If the accused declines, sentencing proceeds on the basis that the disputed mitigation is not accepted.

Citation
[2008] ScotHC HCJ_01
Parties
Prosecutor: Her Majesty's Advocate; Accused: Mark Devlin Murray known as Kieran Kerrigan
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing Opinion Following Guilty Plea
Outcome
Opinion issued; sentencing to proceed on basis that accused's involvement was not limited to providing a safe house.
Legal Topics
Drug Offences, Sentencing Procedure, Mitigation, Factual Disputes in Sentencing
Criminal Law Drug Offences Sentencing Procedure Mitigation Factual Disputes in Sentencing

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Advocate

Prosecutor

Mark Devlin Murray known as Kieran Kerrigan

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing Opinion Following Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge can accept a plea in mitigation when the Crown does not accept its factual basis but does not actively dispute it
  2. 2 What procedure should be followed when there is a factual dispute between Crown and defence at sentencing

Ratio Decidendi

Where the Crown does not accept the factual basis of a plea in mitigation but cannot actively dispute it with evidence, the sentencing judge should not accept the mitigation ex parte and must offer the accused the opportunity to lead evidence in a proof in mitigation. If the accused declines, sentencing proceeds on the basis that the disputed mitigation is not accepted.

Court Disposition

Opinion issued; sentencing to proceed on basis that accused's involvement was not limited to providing a safe house.