APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT BY PATRICK DOCHERTY AGAINST HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE [2014] ScotHC HCJAC_115 (23 October 2014)

APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT BY PATRICK DOCHERTY AGAINST HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE [2014] ScotHC HCJAC_115 (23 October 2014)

The application was refused because the court did not determine any compatibility or devolution issues in the second appeal, and thus there was no competent basis for appeal to the Supreme Court. Any rights to raise such issues were extinguished before 22 April 2013. The application did not meet the essential requirements for leave as set out in Macklin v HM Adv [2013] HCJAC 41.

Citation
[2014] ScotHC HCJAC_115
Parties
Applicant: Patrick Docherty; Respondent: Her Majesty’s Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Refusal of Second Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court refused.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Evidence, Right to Fair Trial, Article 6 ECHR, Devolution Issues, Compatibility Issues, Jury Directions, Dock Identification
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Disclosure of Evidence Right to Fair Trial Article 6 ECHR Devolution Issues Compatibility Issues Jury Directions +1 more

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Docherty

Applicant

Her Majesty’s Advocate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Refusal of Second Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grounds of appeal raised compatibility or devolution issues entitling appeal to the Supreme Court
  2. 2 Whether the non-disclosure of police statements and reliance on police interview evidence breached Article 6 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge's directions on dock identification constituted a misdirection

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the court did not determine any compatibility or devolution issues in the second appeal, and thus there was no competent basis for appeal to the Supreme Court. Any rights to raise such issues were extinguished before 22 April 2013. The application did not meet the essential requirements for leave as set out in Macklin v HM Adv [2013] HCJAC 41.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court refused.