Frame v Kennedy [2008] HCJAC 25 (25 April 2008)

Frame v Kennedy [2008] HCJAC 25 (25 April 2008)

The respondent's possession of the batons was solely for use as props in a professional stripogram performance, immediately prior to the act, and there was no evidence of intent to use them for harm. This constituted a reasonable excuse under section 47(1) of the 1995 Act, justifying the sheriff's decision to uphold the submission of no case to answer.

Citation
[2008] HCJAC 25
Parties
Appellant: Kate Frame, Procurator Fiscal, Aberdeen; Respondent: Stuart Mitchell Kennedy
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (stated Case) / Appeal Against Acquittal After Submission of No Case to Answer
Outcome
appeal refused; acquittal upheld
Legal Topics
Offensive Weapons, Reasonable Excuse, Section 47(1) Criminal Law (consolidation) (scotland) Act 1995, Acquittal, Props in Performance
Criminal Law Offensive Weapons Reasonable Excuse Section 47(1) Criminal Law (consolidation) (scotland) Act 1995 Acquittal Props in Performance

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kate Frame, Procurator Fiscal, Aberdeen

Appellant

Stuart Mitchell Kennedy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (stated Case) / Appeal Against Acquittal After Submission of No Case to Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether possession of offensive weapons as props for a stripogram performance constitutes a 'reasonable excuse' under section 47(1) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff erred in upholding a submission of no case to answer based on the evidence led by the Crown

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's possession of the batons was solely for use as props in a professional stripogram performance, immediately prior to the act, and there was no evidence of intent to use them for harm. This constituted a reasonable excuse under section 47(1) of the 1995 Act, justifying the sheriff's decision to uphold the submission of no case to answer.

Court Disposition

appeal refused; acquittal upheld

Orders

  • Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 in the Stated Case answered in the affirmative
  • Appeal in respect of charge 3 abandoned; unnecessary to answer questions 5 and 8