RECLAIMING MOTION BY PAUL VINCENT KELLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE SCOTTISH CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION [2021] ScotCS CSIH_57 (18 October 2021)

RECLAIMING MOTION BY PAUL VINCENT KELLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE SCOTTISH CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION [2021] ScotCS CSIH_57 (18 October 2021)

The SCCRC applied the correct legal test for defective representation, had an evidential basis for its decision, and took account of all relevant material. The decisions of defence counsel regarding which witnesses to call were within the range of reasonable professional judgment. No error of law or irrationality was demonstrated in the SCCRC's refusal to refer the case, nor in the Lord Ordinary's decision to uphold that refusal.

Citation
[2021] ScotCS CSIH_57
Parties
Petitioner and Reclaimer: Paul Vincent Kelly; Respondent: Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion (appeal)
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused
Legal Topics
Defective Representation, Miscarriage of Justice, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Judicial Review Defective Representation Miscarriage of Justice Appeal Procedure

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Vincent Kelly

Petitioner and Reclaimer

Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion (appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the SCCRC erred in refusing to refer the applicant's conviction to the High Court on grounds of defective representation
  2. 2 Whether the SCCRC's decision was irrational or based on a material error of law

Ratio Decidendi

The SCCRC applied the correct legal test for defective representation, had an evidential basis for its decision, and took account of all relevant material. The decisions of defence counsel regarding which witnesses to call were within the range of reasonable professional judgment. No error of law or irrationality was demonstrated in the SCCRC's refusal to refer the case, nor in the Lord Ordinary's decision to uphold that refusal.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused

Orders

  • Petition for judicial review refused
  • No error of law found in SCCRC or Lord Ordinary's decisions