Watson v. Procurator Fiscal [2004] ScotHC 65 (26 October 2004)

Watson v. Procurator Fiscal [2004] ScotHC 65 (26 October 2004)

Even if there was a technical breach of section 161, it did not result in a miscarriage of justice or oppression, as no prejudice was shown and the sheriff's conduct did not undermine the fairness of the proceedings.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] ScotHC 65
Parties
Complainer: Rosalind Watson; Respondent: Procurator Fiscal, Perth
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Bill of Suspension (criminal Appeal) / Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Bill of suspension refused
Legal Topics
Right to Speak Last, Section 161 Criminal Procedure (scotland) Act 1995, Fair Trial, Miscarriage of Justice
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Right to Speak Last Section 161 Criminal Procedure (scotland) Act 1995 Fair Trial Miscarriage of Justice

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosalind Watson

Complainer

Procurator Fiscal, Perth

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bill of Suspension (criminal Appeal) / Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff's conduct breached section 161 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 by denying the accused's right to speak last
  2. 2 Whether any such breach resulted in oppression or a miscarriage of justice

Ratio Decidendi

Even if there was a technical breach of section 161, it did not result in a miscarriage of justice or oppression, as no prejudice was shown and the sheriff's conduct did not undermine the fairness of the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Bill of suspension refused