STEWART & Ors, BILL FOR CRIMINAL LETTERS BY, v PAYNE & Ors [2016] ScotHC HCJAC_122 (09 December 2016)

STEWART & Ors, BILL FOR CRIMINAL LETTERS BY, v PAYNE & Ors [2016] ScotHC HCJAC_122 (09 December 2016)

The court held that the complainers had title and interest only in relation to the primary charges (dangerous driving causing death), not the subsidiary or post-dating charges, which are of a general and public nature. The court found no error of law in the Crown's approach: the correct legal test was applied, considering both the objective standard and the respondents' knowledge from their medical history. The evidence did not reach the threshold of sufficiency to justify prosecution, and no special circumstances were established to warrant granting the bills for criminal letters. Delay, prejudicial publicity, and procedural unfairness further militated against granting the bills....

Citation
[2016] ScotHC HCJAC_122
Parties
Petitioner: John and Linda Stewart; Petitioner: Alan and Aileen Convy; Respondent: William Payne; Petitioner: Matthew McQuade; Petitioner: Jacqueline McQuade; Petitioner: Yvonne Reilly; Respondent: Henry Clarke; For the Crown: The Lord Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Bill for Criminal Letters (private Prosecution) / Application for Authority to Prosecute After Crown Refusal
Outcome
Bills for criminal letters refused; authority to prosecute not granted.
Legal Topics
Private Prosecution, Dangerous Driving, Culpable and Reckless Conduct, Sufficiency of Evidence, Article 6 ECHR, Delay and Oppression, Fatal Accident Inquiry, Medical Fitness to Drive
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Human Rights Private Prosecution Dangerous Driving Culpable and Reckless Conduct Sufficiency of Evidence Article 6 ECHR +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John and Linda Stewart

Petitioner

Alan and Aileen Convy

Petitioner

William Payne

Respondent

Matthew McQuade

Petitioner

Jacqueline McQuade

Petitioner

Yvonne Reilly

Petitioner

Henry Clarke

Respondent

The Lord Advocate

For the Crown

Procedural Posture

Bill for Criminal Letters (private Prosecution) / Application for Authority to Prosecute After Crown Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complainers have title and interest to bring private prosecution for all charges
  2. 2 Whether there is legal sufficiency of evidence to justify prosecution for dangerous driving and related offences
  3. 3 Whether special circumstances exist to justify granting the bill for criminal letters in absence of Crown concurrence

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the complainers had title and interest only in relation to the primary charges (dangerous driving causing death), not the subsidiary or post-dating charges, which are of a general and public nature. The court found no error of law in the Crown's approach: the correct legal test was applied, considering both the objective standard and the respondents' knowledge from their medical history. The evidence did not reach the threshold of sufficiency to justify prosecution, and no special circumstances were established to warrant granting the bills for criminal letters. Delay, prejudicial publicity, and procedural unfairness further militated against granting the bills....

Court Disposition

Bills for criminal letters refused; authority to prosecute not granted.

Orders

  • Bills for criminal letters at the instance of the complainers refused.
  • No authority granted for private prosecution against William Payne or Henry Clarke.