Johnson v. Grant and Others [1923] ScotLR 508 (05 June 1923)

Johnson v. Grant and Others [1923] ScotLR 508 (05 June 1923)

Where the respondents have served part of their sentence for breach of interdict, have tendered an unqualified apology and undertaking to comply, and the complainer no longer requires protection, the court may, in its discretion and if public interest has been sufficiently vindicated, order release, but such remission is not automatic and depends on the circumstances of each case.

Citation
[1923] ScotLR 508
Parties
Petitioner and Complainer: Walter Lyulph Johnson of Strathaird, Skye; Respondent: John Grant; Respondent: Alexander Mackinnon; Respondent: Donald Mackinnon; Respondent: Alick Robertson; Respondent: John Nicolson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 June 1923
Procedural Posture
Petition and Complaint for Breach of Interdict / Application for Remission of Sentence and Release After Partial Service of Imprisonment
Outcome
Application for remission of sentence and release granted.
Legal Topics
Breach of Interdict, Imprisonment for Breach, Remission of Sentence, Release From Prison
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Administration of Justice Breach of Interdict Imprisonment for Breach Remission of Sentence Release From Prison

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

Parties

Walter Lyulph Johnson of Strathaird, Skye

Petitioner and Complainer

John Grant

Respondent

Alexander Mackinnon

Respondent

Donald Mackinnon

Respondent

Alick Robertson

Respondent

John Nicolson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition and Complaint for Breach of Interdict / Application for Remission of Sentence and Release After Partial Service of Imprisonment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an apology and undertaking to comply with court orders, combined with the complainer's statement that protection is no longer required, justifies remission of sentence and release for breach of interdict

Ratio Decidendi

Where the respondents have served part of their sentence for breach of interdict, have tendered an unqualified apology and undertaking to comply, and the complainer no longer requires protection, the court may, in its discretion and if public interest has been sufficiently vindicated, order release, but such remission is not automatic and depends on the circumstances of each case.

Court Disposition

Application for remission of sentence and release granted.

Orders

  • Immediate liberation of the respondents presently incarcerated in the prison of Edinburgh.
  • Warrant granted to the Governor of the prison for release.