Christiane Stoner v. Her Majesty’s Advocate [2017] HCJAC 32

Appeal under section 65 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995:- Here the appellant appealed against the decision of the sheriff to extend the 12 month ‘bail’ time bar in relation to proceedings on indictment. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the sheriff erred in the application of the two stage test as described in HMA v Swift 1984 JC 83. The circumstances were that the appellant had originally appeared on petition which included an offence allegedly committed in Edinburgh, hence providing Edinburgh Sheriff Court with jurisdiction. When the case was indicted to Edinburgh Sheriff Court, however, that charge was dropped and the remaining charges fell within the jurisdiction of Stirling Sheriff Court. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient reason to justify the grant of the extension of time and, secondly, the sheriff had erred in the exercise of his discretion by granting the extension. In particular, it was submitted that the sheriff ought to have investigated the reason for the error more fully. It was submitted here on behalf of the Crown that there had been a simple administrative error as the checklist used at the stage of indicting did not include a question regarding the issue of jurisdiction. It was further submitted that the indictment had called on a number of occasions before various sheriffs before the error had been noticed. It was submitted that the circumstances were similar to the 5 judge decision in Early v HMA 2007 JC 50 where a Crown error related to the absence of a locus. It was submitted on behalf of the Crown that the defence had requested four adjournments which contributed to delay and numerous extensions of the 12 month time bar being sought and granted. Here the court refused the appeal and considered that the sheriff had been correct to hold that in applying the first stage of the ‘Swift test’ sufficient reason had been shown. Further, the court considered that, in relation to the second stage and the exercising of his discretion, the sheriff was entitled to allow the extension. It was noted that the charges were serious relating to allegations of fraud and the possession of images of the signatures of bank customers. In addition, it was noted that there had been numerous defence motions to adjourn and there was an absence of specific prejudice to the appellant in the granting of the extension and that all the relevant factors had been considered by the sheriff in his decision.