Wilson v. PROCURATOR FISCAL (Harvie) [2010] ScotHC HCJAC_23 (08 January 2010)

Wilson v. PROCURATOR FISCAL (Harvie) [2010] ScotHC HCJAC_23 (08 January 2010)

The increased sentencing powers under the 2007 Act apply to cases where the first calling or warrant occurred on or after 10 December 2007, regardless of the date of the offence. Article 7 ECHR is not breached because the maximum penalty for the offence did not change, only the summary sentencing power. The sheriff acted within his powers and the sentences were competent.

Citation
[2010] ScotHC HCJAC_23
Parties
Complainer: Stephen Wilson; Respondent: Procurator Fiscal, Edinburgh
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Bills of Suspension / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Sentencing Powers, Retrospective Application of Law, Article 7 ECHR, Summary Proceedings
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Sentencing Powers Retrospective Application of Law Article 7 ECHR 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Wilson

Complainer

Procurator Fiscal, Edinburgh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bills of Suspension / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether increased sentencing powers under the Criminal Proceedings etc (Scotland) Act 2007 could be applied to offences committed before the commencement date
  2. 2 Whether such application is incompatible with Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The increased sentencing powers under the 2007 Act apply to cases where the first calling or warrant occurred on or after 10 December 2007, regardless of the date of the offence. Article 7 ECHR is not breached because the maximum penalty for the offence did not change, only the summary sentencing power. The sheriff acted within his powers and the sentences were competent.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused

Orders

  • Both Bills of Suspension refused