HM Advocate v Ronald & Ors [2009] ScotHC HCJAC_177 (30 April 2009)

HM Advocate v Ronald & Ors [2009] ScotHC HCJAC_177 (30 April 2009)

The court must assume the accused committed the alleged conduct freely and with intent when considering a plea in bar of trial based on entrapment. The factual basis for entrapment must be established by the accused. The court's role is not to determine guilt or innocence, but whether police conduct was so seriously improper as to compromise the integrity of the judicial system and bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The guidance from R v Looseley and Brown v HM Advocate governs the approach, and entrapment is not a substantive defence but grounds for a plea in bar of trial.

Citation
[2009] ScotHC HCJAC_177
Parties
Prosecutor: Her Majesty's Advocate; Accused: Marshall Neil Craig Ronald; Accused: Robert Stuart Graham; Accused: John Gerard Doyle; Accused: Callum Symon Jones; Accused: David James Boyce
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Preliminary Hearing on Plea in Bar of Trial (entrapment)
Outcome
Order postponing publication of report of preliminary hearings until after conclusion of trial or earlier termination of proceedings.
Legal Topics
Entrapment, Abuse of Process, Extortion, Reset, Embezzlement, Plea in Bar of Trial, Devolution Issue, European Convention on Human Rights
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Entrapment Abuse of Process Extortion Reset Embezzlement Plea in Bar of Trial +2 more

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Advocate

Prosecutor

Marshall Neil Craig Ronald

Accused

Robert Stuart Graham

Accused

John Gerard Doyle

Accused

Callum Symon Jones

Accused

David James Boyce

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Preliminary Hearing on Plea in Bar of Trial (entrapment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused were entrapped by undercover agents into committing the alleged offences
  2. 2 Whether continuation of proceedings would be oppressive and unfair
  3. 3 Compatibility of prosecution with Articles 6 and 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The court must assume the accused committed the alleged conduct freely and with intent when considering a plea in bar of trial based on entrapment. The factual basis for entrapment must be established by the accused. The court's role is not to determine guilt or innocence, but whether police conduct was so seriously improper as to compromise the integrity of the judicial system and bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The guidance from R v Looseley and Brown v HM Advocate governs the approach, and entrapment is not a substantive defence but grounds for a plea in bar of trial.

Court Disposition

Order postponing publication of report of preliminary hearings until after conclusion of trial or earlier termination of proceedings.

Orders

  • Order under section 4(2) Contempt of Court Act 1981 pronounced on 30 March 2009 postponing publication of any report of the Continued Preliminary Hearings until after conclusion of trial or earlier termination of proceedings.