Procurator Fiscal v. Kelly & Ors [2004] ScotHC 8 (10 February 2004)

Procurator Fiscal v. Kelly & Ors [2004] ScotHC 8 (10 February 2004)

The Sheriff did not err in refusing to adjourn the diet; the absence of witnesses was due to Crown fault, and the inconvenience to respondents and the background of recurring witness citation failures justified refusal. The Sheriff properly balanced the public interest and prejudice to parties.

Citation
[2004] ScotHC 8
Parties
Complainer: Procurator Fiscal (Hamilton); Respondent: Michael Joseph Kelly; Respondent: Graeme Stewart; Respondent: Steven John Shaw
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Bill of Advocation / Appeal
Outcome
Bill of Advocation refused
Legal Topics
Adjournment of Trial, Desertion of Diet, Witness Citation, Summary Proceedings
Criminal Law Procedure Adjournment of Trial Desertion of Diet Witness Citation Summary Proceedings

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Procurator Fiscal (Hamilton)

Complainer

Michael Joseph Kelly

Respondent

Graeme Stewart

Respondent

Steven John Shaw

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bill of Advocation / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sheriff erred in refusing to adjourn the trial diet
  2. 2 Whether the Sheriff was unjust or oppressive in deserting the diet simpliciter

Ratio Decidendi

The Sheriff did not err in refusing to adjourn the diet; the absence of witnesses was due to Crown fault, and the inconvenience to respondents and the background of recurring witness citation failures justified refusal. The Sheriff properly balanced the public interest and prejudice to parties.

Court Disposition

Bill of Advocation refused