PATRICK DOCHERTY AGAINST HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE [2014] ScotHC HCJAC_94 (29 August 2014)

PATRICK DOCHERTY AGAINST HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE [2014] ScotHC HCJAC_94 (29 August 2014)

The appeal was refused because the court found that neither the non-disclosure of police statements, the misdirection on dock identification, nor the admission of the inadmissible police interview, individually or collectively, led to a miscarriage of justice given the strength of the circumstantial evidence against the appellant. The court also held that compatibility issues could not be raised as no devolution minutes were lodged and the issues had been extinguished by prior determinations.

Citation
[2014] ScotHC HCJAC_94
Parties
Appellant: Patrick Docherty; Respondent: Her Majesty’s Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (referral) / Appeal Against Conviction Following Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission Referral
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Murder, Non Disclosure, Admissibility of Evidence, Dock Identification, Right to Legal Advice, Misdirection, Compatibility Issues, Devolution Issues
Criminal Law Murder Non Disclosure Admissibility of Evidence Dock Identification Right to Legal Advice Misdirection Compatibility Issues +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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Docherty

Appellant

Her Majesty’s Advocate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (referral) / Appeal Against Conviction Following Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission Referral

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-disclosure of police statements constituted a miscarriage of justice
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on dock identification was a material misdirection
  3. 3 Whether the admission of police interviews without legal advice breached Article 6 rights and rendered the trial unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was refused because the court found that neither the non-disclosure of police statements, the misdirection on dock identification, nor the admission of the inadmissible police interview, individually or collectively, led to a miscarriage of justice given the strength of the circumstantial evidence against the appellant. The court also held that compatibility issues could not be raised as no devolution minutes were lodged and the issues had been extinguished by prior determinations.

Court Disposition

appeal refused