Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Scotland decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Appeal under section 74 by DM against HMA (High Court of Justiciary) [2024] HCJAC 49 (21 March 2024)
The Appeal Court held that 2005 dishonesty convictions were too remote and minor to be admissible to attack a complainer’s credibility in a rape trial.
HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE AGAINST RONALD JAMES ALEXANDER ADAMS [2021] ScotHC HCJAC_19 (30 August 2019)
The appeal court held that evidence of a docket offence previously admitted by guilty plea was admissible and did not breach Article 6 rights.
APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE BY GRANT GAY AGAINST HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE [2017] ScotHC HCJAC_62 (08 August 2017)
The Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary refused an appeal against a 2-year sentence for assault to severe injury, holding it was not excessive.
McLeish v HM Advocate [2016] ScotHC HCJAC_74 (29 August 2016)
The Appeal Court held that cross-examination on prior convictions was wrongly allowed after only an incidental remark about a witness, and allowed the conviction appeal.
Donnell v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2009] ScotHC HCJAC_83 (23 October 2009)
The Appeal Court held that an accused’s trial was not rendered unfair by unproven charges left on the indictment or by a witness’s stray reference to a past conviction.
Her Majesty's Advocate v. DS [2005] ScotHC HCJAC_90 (03 August 2005)
The Appeal Court held that section 275A of the 1995 Act, read with sections 274 and 275, was compatible with Article 6 and did not make the trial unfair.
STEVEN STEELE URQUHART v. HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE [1999] ScotHC 195 (23rd July, 1999)
It was competent for the Sheriff to consider the appellant's recent previous conviction for speeding when imposing penalty points for careless driving, and the imposition of the maximum number of points was justified by the seriousness of the offence and the proximity of the previous conviction.
Source excerpt
HECTOR RILEY v. HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE [1999] ScotHC 167 (24th June, 1999)
The evidence of witness A. was sufficient to corroborate the complainer's evidence of penetration, justifying the conviction for rape. The trial judge erred in considering excessive detail about a previous conviction, but the appropriate sentence remains ten years imprisonment given the gravity of the offence and the appellant's record.
Source excerpt
CRAIG BROWN JOHNSTONE GILLESPIE BARNES v. HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE [2000] ScotHC 90 (26th September, 2000)
Section 266(4)(c) does not entitle a co-accused to cross-examine another accused on previous convictions where the evidence against the co-accused was deliberately elicited for the sole purpose of creating the right to cross-examine. The legislative intent is to protect accused persons from prejudicial cross-examination, and the provision cannot be used as a weapon to undermine that protection by deliberate stratagem.
Source excerpt
BRIAN HAMILTON v. PROCURATOR FISCAL, LINLITHGOW [2000] ScotHC 37 (22nd March, 2000)
It is competent for the court to have regard to a DVLA print-out of previous convictions or disqualifications where no licence is produced to the court, regardless of whether the accused never held a licence, lost it, or was disqualified. Earlier case law to the contrary has been superseded by statutory amendments.
Source excerpt
Explore more
