Stuart v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2010] ScotHC HCJAC_34 (16 April 2010)

Stuart v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2010] ScotHC HCJAC_34 (16 April 2010)

The sheriff erred in law by failing to consider remitting the case for a section 16 return order and by imposing a sentence to run consecutively to the sentence being served, which is incompetent under section 204A when the offender has been recalled under section 17.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] ScotHC HCJAC_34
Parties
Appellant: Simon Stuart; Respondent: Her Majesty's Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Sentence / Appellate
Outcome
Sentences quashed and case remitted to sheriff for further proceedings.
Legal Topics
Early Release, Recall to Prison, Consecutive and Concurrent Sentences, Section 16 and 17 Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (scotland) Act 1993, Section 204 a Criminal Procedure (scotland) Act 1995
Criminal Law Sentencing Early Release Recall to Prison Consecutive and Concurrent Sentences Section 16 and 17 Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (scotland) Act 1993 Section 204 a Criminal Procedure (scotland) Act 1995

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Stuart

Appellant

Her Majesty's Advocate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Sentence / Appellate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff erred by not considering remitting the case to the High Court for a section 16 return order under the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993
  2. 2 Whether it was competent for the sheriff to impose a sentence to run consecutively to the sentence currently being served, given section 204A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and the recall under section 17 of the 1993 Act

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff erred in law by failing to consider remitting the case for a section 16 return order and by imposing a sentence to run consecutively to the sentence being served, which is incompetent under section 204A when the offender has been recalled under section 17.

Court Disposition

Sentences quashed and case remitted to sheriff for further proceedings.

Orders

  • Quash the sentences imposed by the sheriff on 9 March 2009.
  • Remit the case to the sheriff to proceed as accords with full information on release and recall dates to be provided at further hearings.