Henvey v HM Advocate [2011] ScotHC HCJAC_25 (09 March 2011)

Henvey v HM Advocate [2011] ScotHC HCJAC_25 (09 March 2011)

The court held that the second sift judges were entitled to refuse the supplementary ground as incompetent, as there was no amendment to the grounds of appeal and no procedural vice occurred. The nobile officium was not engaged because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the supplementary ground was prima facie of substance or that injustice had resulted from the refusal.

Citation
[2011] ScotHC HCJAC_25
Parties
Petitioner: Steven Henvey; Respondent: HM Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Petition to the Nobile Officium / Post Conviction, After Refusal of Leave to Appeal Against Conviction at Second Sift
Outcome
petition refused
Legal Topics
Nobile Officium, Leave to Appeal, Defective Representation, Criminal Appeals, Procedural Fairness
Criminal Law Appellate Procedure Nobile Officium Leave to Appeal Defective Representation Criminal Appeals Procedural Fairness

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Henvey

Petitioner

HM Advocate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition to the Nobile Officium / Post Conviction, After Refusal of Leave to Appeal Against Conviction at Second Sift

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing to consider a fresh ground of appeal as incompetent at the second sift stage without a procedural hearing
  2. 2 Whether the nobile officium should be exercised to set aside the interlocutor in respect of the fresh ground of appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the second sift judges were entitled to refuse the supplementary ground as incompetent, as there was no amendment to the grounds of appeal and no procedural vice occurred. The nobile officium was not engaged because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the supplementary ground was prima facie of substance or that injustice had resulted from the refusal.

Court Disposition

petition refused

Orders

  • Application to the nobile officium refused.