Paterson v HM Advocate [2010] ScotHC HCJAC_85 (24 August 2010)

Paterson v HM Advocate [2010] ScotHC HCJAC_85 (24 August 2010)

The description of the premises, when considered with references to Glasgow and Strathclyde in the warrant, was sufficient to identify the premises and establish jurisdiction; the warrant was valid and effective.

Citation
[2010] ScotHC HCJAC_85
Parties
Complainer: James Paterson; Respondent: Procurator Fiscal, Glasgow
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Bill of Suspension / Appeal
Outcome
bill refused
Legal Topics
Search Warrant Validity, Jurisdiction, Adequate Description of Premises
Criminal Law Search Warrant Validity Jurisdiction Adequate Description of Premises

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Paterson

Complainer

Procurator Fiscal, Glasgow

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bill of Suspension / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search warrant contained an adequate description of the premises to be searched
  2. 2 Whether omission of the town or city in the warrant was fatal to its validity

Ratio Decidendi

The description of the premises, when considered with references to Glasgow and Strathclyde in the warrant, was sufficient to identify the premises and establish jurisdiction; the warrant was valid and effective.

Court Disposition

bill refused

Orders

  • The bill of suspension is refused.