OPINION OF THE LORD JUSTICE GENERAL IN THE APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTION BY EWAN PATERSON & Ors AGAINST PF AIRDRIE [2014] ScotHC HCJAC_87 (15 August 2014)

OPINION OF THE LORD JUSTICE GENERAL IN THE APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTION BY EWAN PATERSON & Ors AGAINST PF AIRDRIE [2014] ScotHC HCJAC_87 (15 August 2014)

Section 38(1)(b) does not require proof that any person actually suffered fear or alarm; it is sufficient that the accused's behaviour would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm. The actual effect on the complainer is irrelevant. The convictions were properly based on this objective test.

Citation
[2014] ScotHC HCJAC_87
Parties
Appellant: Ewan Paterson; Appellant: David Bow; Appellant: Jamie Love; Respondent: PF Airdrie; Respondent: PF Stirling
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeals refused
Legal Topics
Threatening or Abusive Behaviour, Objective Test for Fear or Alarm, Section 38 Criminal Justice and Licensing (scotland) Act 2010, Racial Aggravation, Religious Aggravation, Corroboration, Overruling Precedent
Criminal Law Threatening or Abusive Behaviour Objective Test for Fear or Alarm Section 38 Criminal Justice and Licensing (scotland) Act 2010 Racial Aggravation Religious Aggravation Corroboration Overruling Precedent

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

Ewan Paterson

Appellant

David Bow

Appellant

Jamie Love

Appellant

PF Airdrie

Respondent

PF Stirling

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 38(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 requires proof of actual fear or alarm in the complainer or only that the behaviour would be likely to cause fear or alarm to a reasonable person
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff was entitled to convict in the absence of evidence of actual fear or alarm
  3. 3 Whether corroboration requirements were met

Ratio Decidendi

Section 38(1)(b) does not require proof that any person actually suffered fear or alarm; it is sufficient that the accused's behaviour would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm. The actual effect on the complainer is irrelevant. The convictions were properly based on this objective test.

Court Disposition

appeals refused

Orders

  • All three appeals against conviction are refused.
  • Jolly v HM Adv is overruled.