-
You are here:
-
Home
-
Case Law
Euan A. Dow, Advocate’s Case Law Summaries
Access hundreds of Euan’s case law summaries for free. See his latest summaries below or use our search box to find the case summary you’re looking for.
Notes of appeal against conviction and sentence:- Both appellants were convicted after trial of a charge of murder relating to the death of Tracy Walker in Shetland on 30 July 2019. The first appellant was sentenced, as actor, to life imprisonment with a punishment part of 23 years. The second appe......
Show Details
Note of appeal against conviction:- On 5 November 2020, following a trial at Edinburgh High Court, the appellant was found guilty of a charge of attempted murder by repeatedly striking the complainer on the body with a knife and sentenced to 8 years imprisonment. The appellant appealed against his ......
Show Details
Crown appeal against sentence:- On 15 September 2020, at a first diet at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, the respondent pled guilty on indictment to two charges:- (1) a contravention of section 24(1) of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, by repeatedly sending sexual and written communications to a g......
Show Details
Petition and complaint for a decision in an application for permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court:- The applicant was found to be in contempt of court in relation to publication by him of material which was likely to lead to the identification of complainers in the trial of HMA&nbs......
Show Details
Notes of appeal against sentence:- The appellants appealed against the sentences imposed against them in relation to offences of spitting at police officers during the COVID pandemic. The appeals followed the general guidance provided by the court in the Crown appeal against sentence in H.M.A. v. L......
Show Details
Note of appeal against sentence:- The appellant was indicted to the sheriff court in relation to a charge alleging a contravention of section 35 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 by fraudulently obtaining child tax credits over a period between May 2012 and January 2018. At a first diet the appellant ple......
Show Details
Note of appeal against sentence:- The appellant pled guilty under the accelerated procedure under section 76 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to two charges:- (1) rape to injury of a child under the age of 13, contrary to sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 200......
Show Details
Bill of Advocation:- On 22 December 2020, at Falkirk Sheriff Court, the sheriff refused to determine the complainer’s application for a bail review of an earlier ruling not to allow him bail on the basis that he regarded the application as incompetent because the Sheriff Appeal Court had pre......
Show Details
Application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom:- Here the applicant sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The applicant contended that there were four Article 6 compatibility issues arising from the refusal of his appeal against his......
-
Court Date: Friday, 04 June 2021
-
Court: The High Court of Justiciary
-
Judgement Address: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021hcjac25.pdf?sfvrsn=0Application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom:- Here the applicant sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The applicant contended that there were four Article 6 compatibility issues arising from the refusal of his appeal against his father’s conviction ([2021] HCJAC 3) in relation to two preliminary decisions on (1) the scope of the appeal and (2) order for disclosure and the appeal court’s rejection of two grounds of appeal relating to (1) the unreasonable verdict ground and (2) a failure to disclose ground. Here the court considered:- (1) whether the applicant has identified a potential error by this court; and (2) whether the point of law is one of general public importance. The applicant had sought to add a ground that the Crown ought to have had an adequate system of disclosure in place which the SCCRC had considered, but had not referred to the high court. In its Opinion [2020] HCJAC 39 the court did not consider that it was in the interests of justice to allow this ground to be advanced. The court decided that the establishment of this ground could not result in a finding that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. Here the court considered that the decision did not raise any compatibility issue and none was decided. In relation to the issue of disclosure, namely, the court’s refusal to order the disclosure of two documents which were the subject of a Public Interest Immunity Certificate, in its Opinion 2020] HCJAC 54, the court balanced the public interest with the fairness of the proceedings in terms of Al Rawi v Security Service [2012] 1 AC 531 and applied the test in McInnes v HMA 2010 SC (UKSC) 28. The court considered, as a matter of fact, that the documents would not have assisted the defence at trial. Here the court considered that the decision did not raise any compatibility issue and the test in McInnes is compatible with Article 6. In relation to the issue of whether the court’s decision on the disclosure ground of appeal amounted to a breach of Article 6 in its Opinion [2021] HCJAC 3 the court applied the test in McInnes and determined, as a matter of fact, that the undisclosed material would not have been of assistance to the defence at the trial and looking at the evidence as a whole and the circumstances of the trial in general the content of the documents would not have produced a real possibility of a different verdict. The court considered that the decision and the evaluation of the material did not raise any compatibility issue as the test in McInnes is compatible with Article 6. In relation to the issue of whether the court reached a reasoned decision on the application of the “no reasonable jury” test in section 106(3)(b) of the 1995 Act the court considered that no compatibility issue arose as the court determined the verdict of the trial was reasonable albeit the trial court had erred in excluding additional incriminating evidence. The court observed that generally issues relating to the admissibility of evidence rarely raised compatibility issues. The court acknowledged that whilst the case is one of public importance the proposed grounds of appeal did not raise points of law of general public importance. Finally, the court queried the competence of the application and whether the applicant was a victim in respect of the alleged article 6 violations, however, in light of the court’s decision on the substantive points raised, the court did not consider it necessary to determine the issue.
Show Details
Note of appeal against conviction:- On 19 February 2020, at Edinburgh High Court, the appellant was convicted of 29 charges following trial largely relating to conduct during his relationships with seven women over a 15 year period including three charges of rape involving DC in 200......
Show Details
0141 553 4890