HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. DAVID SHIELDS MONTGOMERY and ANDREW COULTER [1999] ScotHC 219 (14th September, 1999)

HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. DAVID SHIELDS MONTGOMERY and ANDREW COULTER [1999] ScotHC 219 (14th September, 1999)

The presiding judge was entitled to exercise discretion to allow late amendment to devolution issue notice, as cause was shown by the circumstances and significance of the issue; procedural rules do not preclude such discretion, and interests of justice may justify departure from strict time limits.

Citation
[1999] ScotHC 219
Parties
Appellant: HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE; Respondent: DAVID SHIELDS MONTGOMERY; Respondent: ANDREW COULTER
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Procedural Order at Preliminary Diet
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Devolution Issues, Fair Trial Rights, Procedural Amendment, European Convention on Human Rights, Scotland Act 1998
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Devolution Issues Fair Trial Rights Procedural Amendment European Convention on Human Rights Scotland Act 1998

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE

Appellant

DAVID SHIELDS MONTGOMERY

Respondent

ANDREW COULTER

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Procedural Order at Preliminary Diet

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether late amendment to devolution issue notice is competent under procedural rules
  2. 2 Whether cause was shown for allowing late raising of devolution issue
  3. 3 Interaction between Section 72 of Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and Chapter 40 of Act of Adjournal

Ratio Decidendi

The presiding judge was entitled to exercise discretion to allow late amendment to devolution issue notice, as cause was shown by the circumstances and significance of the issue; procedural rules do not preclude such discretion, and interests of justice may justify departure from strict time limits.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • Presiding judge's decision to consider additions to minute upheld
  • Proceedings to continue with consideration of both original and additional devolution issues