NOTE OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 74(1) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT 1995 BY HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. DAVID SHIELDS MONTGOMERY and ANDREW COULTER [1999] ScotHC 221 (14th September, 1999)

NOTE OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 74(1) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT 1995 BY HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. DAVID SHIELDS MONTGOMERY and ANDREW COULTER [1999] ScotHC 221 (14th September, 1999)

It was within the presiding judge's discretion to allow the late raising of a devolution issue where cause was shown, considering all circumstances, including the significance of the issue and the interests of justice. The statutory framework does not impose an absolute bar on late amendments, and the procedural requirements were satisfied in this case.

Citation
[1999] ScotHC 221
Parties
Appellant: Her Majesty's Advocate; Respondent: David Shields Montgomery; Respondent: Andrew Alexander Marshall Coulter
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutor Permitting Late Raising of Devolution Issue Prior to Trial
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Devolution Issues, Fair Trial Rights, Procedural Time Limits, Article 6 ECHR, Amendment of Notices, Preliminary Diet Procedure
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Devolution Issues Fair Trial Rights Procedural Time Limits Article 6 ECHR Amendment of Notices +1 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Advocate

Appellant

David Shields Montgomery

Respondent

Andrew Alexander Marshall Coulter

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutor Permitting Late Raising of Devolution Issue Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was competent to allow amendment of a devolution issue notice after the statutory time limit under Rule 40.2 of the Act of Adjournal
  2. 2 Whether the presiding judge properly exercised discretion under Rule 40.5(1) to permit late raising of a devolution issue
  3. 3 Whether procedural requirements for notice and amendment of devolution issues were satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

It was within the presiding judge's discretion to allow the late raising of a devolution issue where cause was shown, considering all circumstances, including the significance of the issue and the interests of justice. The statutory framework does not impose an absolute bar on late amendments, and the procedural requirements were satisfied in this case.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused

Orders

  • The appeal by the Crown is refused. The presiding judge's decision to consider the additional devolution issue is affirmed.