ROBERT SAMUEL NAPIER v. PROCURATOR FISCAL, LINLITHGOW [2001] ScotHC 42 (13th June, 2001)

ROBERT SAMUEL NAPIER v. PROCURATOR FISCAL, LINLITHGOW [2001] ScotHC 42 (13th June, 2001)

In the circumstances of this case, the words used in recording the proceedings on 2 November 1999 were sufficient to constitute an adjournment of the case, and there is no basis for suggesting the sentencing process was interrupted or brought to an end.

Citation
[2001] ScotHC 42
Parties
Complainer: Robert Samuel Napier; Complainer: Andrew Cunningham; Respondent: Procurator Fiscal, Linlithgow
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Bills of Advocation / Appeal
Outcome
Bills of Advocation refused
Legal Topics
Adjournment Before Sentence, Competency of Sentence, Amendment of Court Minutes
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Adjournment Before Sentence Competency of Sentence Amendment of Court Minutes

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Samuel Napier

Complainer

Andrew Cunningham

Complainer

Procurator Fiscal, Linlithgow

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bills of Advocation / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing process was interrupted due to lack of explicit order deferring sentence
  2. 2 Whether amendment of the minute of 2 November 1999 was competent

Ratio Decidendi

In the circumstances of this case, the words used in recording the proceedings on 2 November 1999 were sufficient to constitute an adjournment of the case, and there is no basis for suggesting the sentencing process was interrupted or brought to an end.

Court Disposition

Bills of Advocation refused