Chief Constable, Northern Constabulary v. Tough [2006] ScotSC 16 (10 March 2006)

Chief Constable, Northern Constabulary v. Tough [2006] ScotSC 16 (10 March 2006)

The sheriff principal found that, although there was a minor error of law in the sheriff's reasoning regarding the number and type of offences required, this did not affect the overall exercise of discretion. The sheriff was entitled to refuse certain prohibitions as unduly onerous and unnecessary, and the appellant failed to demonstrate why the sheriff's interlocutor should be altered. The appeal was refused and the sheriff's order adhered to.

Citation
[2006] ScotSC 16
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Chief Constable, Northern Constabulary; Defender and Respondent: Graeme Macpherson Tough
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Interim Sexual Offences Prevention Order
Outcome
appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences Prevention Orders, Judicial Discretion, Appeal Procedure, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Public Protection Sexual Offences Prevention Orders Judicial Discretion Appeal Procedure Statutory Interpretation

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chief Constable, Northern Constabulary

Pursuer and Appellant

Graeme Macpherson Tough

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Interim Sexual Offences Prevention Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff erred in law in granting or limiting an interim sexual offences prevention order under the Sexual Offences Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff applied the correct legal test regarding necessity and proportionality of prohibitions
  3. 3 Whether the sheriff misapplied the statutory requirements for making such orders

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff principal found that, although there was a minor error of law in the sheriff's reasoning regarding the number and type of offences required, this did not affect the overall exercise of discretion. The sheriff was entitled to refuse certain prohibitions as unduly onerous and unnecessary, and the appellant failed to demonstrate why the sheriff's interlocutor should be altered. The appeal was refused and the sheriff's order adhered to.

Court Disposition

appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to

Orders

  • Pursuer and appellant found liable to defender and respondent in expenses of the appeal; account to be taxed and reported by auditor of court
  • Cause remitted to sheriff to proceed as accords