Glancy v HM Advocate [2011] ScotHC HCJAC_104 (25 October 201)

Glancy v HM Advocate [2011] ScotHC HCJAC_104 (25 October 201)

The statutory defence under section 49(4) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 imposes a legal burden on the accused to prove the defence on the balance of probabilities, which is compatible with Article 6(2) ECHR. The sheriff's directions to the jury were correct, and the phrase 'balance of probabilities' required no further explanation.

Citation
[2011] ScotHC HCJAC_104
Parties
Appellant: Kevin Glancy; Respondent: Her Majesty's Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Conviction / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Reverse Burden of Proof, Statutory Defences, Presumption of Innocence, Interpretation of ECHR Article 6(2), Possession of Bladed Articles
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Reverse Burden of Proof Statutory Defences Presumption of Innocence Interpretation of ECHR Article 6(2) Possession of Bladed Articles

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Glancy

Appellant

Her Majesty's Advocate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Conviction / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory defence under section 49(4) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 imposes a legal or evidential burden on the accused
  2. 2 Whether such a burden is compatible with Article 6(2) of the ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the sheriff misdirected the jury regarding the standard of proof for the statutory defence

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory defence under section 49(4) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 imposes a legal burden on the accused to prove the defence on the balance of probabilities, which is compatible with Article 6(2) ECHR. The sheriff's directions to the jury were correct, and the phrase 'balance of probabilities' required no further explanation.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused