Her Majesty's Advocate v. GF [2007] ScotHC HCJ_04 (11 May 2007)

Her Majesty's Advocate v. GF [2007] ScotHC HCJ_04 (11 May 2007)

The motion for a further continuation was refused because the defence had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in pursuing the neuro-psychological inquiry, no expert had been instructed, the inquiry appeared speculative, and the case had already experienced significant delay without justification. The statutory and practice framework requires that continuations be exceptional and justified by reasons that could not have been addressed earlier.

Citation
[2007] ScotHC HCJ_04
Parties
Prosecutor: Her Majesty's Advocate; Accused: G. F.
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Preliminary Hearing (motion to Continue)
Outcome
motion for continuation refused; trial diet appointed
Legal Topics
Preliminary Hearings, Adjournment of Hearings, Case Management, Sexual Offences
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Preliminary Hearings Adjournment of Hearings Case Management Sexual Offences

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Advocate

Prosecutor

G. F.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Preliminary Hearing (motion to Continue)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a further continuation of the preliminary hearing should be granted for additional defence inquiries, specifically neuro-psychological assessment of the accused's memory.

Ratio Decidendi

The motion for a further continuation was refused because the defence had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in pursuing the neuro-psychological inquiry, no expert had been instructed, the inquiry appeared speculative, and the case had already experienced significant delay without justification. The statutory and practice framework requires that continuations be exceptional and justified by reasons that could not have been addressed earlier.

Court Disposition

motion for continuation refused; trial diet appointed

Orders

  • Refusal of motion to continue preliminary hearing.
  • Appointment of trial diet.