Cameron v HM Advocate [2016] ScotHC HCJAC_13 (08 February 2016)

Cameron v HM Advocate [2016] ScotHC HCJAC_13 (08 February 2016)

The absence of a witness does not of itself constitute injustice or oppression; Council of Europe countries are assumed capable of protecting fair trial rights. No error was found in the sheriff's reasoning, and there is no arguable case for appeal.

Citation
[2016] ScotHC HCJAC_13
Parties
Applicant: Robert Cameron; Respondent: Her Majesty’s Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Extradition Order
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Extradition, Delay in Prosecution, Article 6 ECHR, Injustice and Oppression, Absence of Witness
Criminal Law Extradition Law Human Rights Law Extradition Delay in Prosecution Article 6 ECHR Injustice and Oppression Absence of Witness

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Cameron

Applicant

Her Majesty’s Advocate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Extradition Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive due to passage of time
  2. 2 Whether absence of witness constitutes injustice or oppression
  3. 3 Whether applicant's Article 6 rights would be breached

Ratio Decidendi

The absence of a witness does not of itself constitute injustice or oppression; Council of Europe countries are assumed capable of protecting fair trial rights. No error was found in the sheriff's reasoning, and there is no arguable case for appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against extradition order is refused