William Bennett McGuire v. Her Majesty’s Advocate [2016] HCJAC 113

Section 65 appeal under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995:- Here it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the judge had erred in granting the Crown an extension to the time limits specified in section 65 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the judge had erred in the application of the two stage test as described in H.M.A. v. Swift 1984 J.C. 83. In relation to the first stage of the test, the question whether “sufficient reason” had been shown, it was submitted that the extension was required as a result of error on the part of the Crown in failing to set an appropriate deadline for the forensic laboratory to send their final DNA report to the Crown. In relation to the second stage of the test, the judge’s discretion, it was contended that the judge had erred in the exercise of her discretion by attaching too much weight to court timetabling. Here the court refused the appeal. In relation to the first stage of the test the court pointed to the case involving an unusually large number of items to be forensically examined by various departments which work took a significant amount of time. The court considered that the Crown precognition officer had taken all reasonable steps to advance matters along the way. The court did not consider that it was appropriate for the Crown to tell the forensic laboratory to give priority to a particular matter nor is it for the Crown to tell the laboratory how to carry out their procedures. In all of the circumstances the court did not consider there to be any fault on the part of the Crown. In relation to the second stage of the test the court considered that the judge was entitled to exercise her discretion in the way that she did, in particular, the emphasis placed on the desirability to have one trial for all five accused rather than two separate trials.