Subscribe RSS
Comment RSS
2009 WL 4872791
HCJ Lady Paton; Lord Eassie; Lord Kingarth; Lord Osborne; Lord Wheatley; The Lord Justice Clerk (Gill); The Lord Justice General (Hamilton)
The appellant was detained and interviewed by police officers, without any access to a lawyer. The responses given were relied on by the prosecution at trial. The guarantees available under the Scottish system were sufficient to secure …
Articles in: Art. 06 Right to a Fair Trial
McLean v HM Advocate
January 22, 2010 | No CommentsObjection to Admissibility of Evidence of Child Witnesses
December 24, 2009 | No CommentsOpinion of Lord Brodie on the question of how to deal with objection to admissibility of evidence of two child witnesses. The defence contended that the children’s evidence had been contaminated by the way the police and Crown had prepared their cases, with an absence of proper records of questions asked in some interviews and leading questions in others.
Lord Brodie …
Scottish Appeal Court Decision on Sanction for Counsel
December 24, 2009 | No CommentsAppeal Court rejects argument that sanction for counsel is necessary for a fair trial in a sheriff and jury case, even if it is complicated or unusual.
It should be noted that there were no submissions based on actual consideration of the evidence in the case of these accused.
To read the decision in full, please click here.
‘The Threat of Terrorism and the Fate of Control Orders’
December 16, 2009 | No CommentsThis article, by Professor Clive Walker, examines the operation of control orders since their introduction by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, and considers …
Art. 05 Right to Liberty and Security, Art. 06 Right to a Fair Trial, Criminal Law and Criminal ProcedureR (on the application of A) (FC) (Appellant) v London Borough of Croydon (Respondents); and one other action R (on the application of M) (FC) (Appellant) v London Borough of Lambeth (Respondents) and one other action [2009] UKSC 8
December 14, 2009 | No CommentsThe appeals of two asylum seekers (X and M) against a decision that they were adults and so were not entitled to be accommodated as children, were allowed by the Supreme Court. The appellants claimed to be under 18, however, the local authorities determined that they were in fact over 18.
Art. 06 Right to a Fair Trial, Art. 08 Right to Private and Family Life, Asylum & Immigration Law