Appeal By Rebecca Mccallum Against Procurator Fiscal Edinburgh
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Turnbull,Lord Brodie,Lord Justice General |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] HCJAC 26 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Date | 22 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | HCA/2018/622/XC |
| Published date | 01 May 2019 |
APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
[2019] HCJAC 26
HCA/2018/622/XC
Lord Justice General
Lord Brodie
Lord Turnbull
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by LORD TURNBULL
in
APPEAL FROM THE SHERIFF APPEAL COURT IN TERMS OF SECTION 194ZB OF THE
by
REBECCA McCALLUM
Appellant
against
PROCURATOR FISCAL, EDINBURGH
Respondent
Appellant: R E More (sol adv), Robert More & Co
Respondent: Borthwick AD; the Crown Agent
22 March 2019
[1] The appellant is now 38 years old. On 22 November 2017, she lived at an address in
Edinburgh with her then 14-year-old son. In circumstances which we shall explain, she
came to be convicted of two charges of assaulting police officers at her home address a little
before 10pm on that date. The police officers were acting unlawfully and this case concerns
the extent to which a citizen is entitled to resort to force by way of response.
2
The circumstances in which the events occurred
[2] In the course of the evening of 22 November 2017, police constables Jill Urquhart and
Scott Dugan were instructed to attend at the appellant’s home and detain her in terms of
section 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 in relation to an allegation of
assault. Their instructions were that, having detained her, they were to transport her to a
police station for interview.
[3] The officers attended at the appellant’s home at around 9:40pm. The appellant
opened the door of her flat in response to their knocking. She was wearing her nightclothes.
The officers explained their intentions during a brief discussion at the doorway. The
appellant made it plain that she had no intention of accompanying them and attempted to
close the door of her flat. She was physically prevented from doing so by both officers who
then crossed the threshold of her property, entered the hallway there and each took a hold
of one of her arms with the intention of physically removing her.
private property without invitation (and, a fortiori, to enter private property forcibly and
against the will of the occupier), police officers ordinarily require the authority of the courts
in the form of a warrant. The statutory power of detention contained within section 14 of
the 1995 Act did not make provision for the power of entry onto private property (see the
opinion of the court delivered by Lord Reed at paragraphs [9] & [10]).
[5] It was conceded by the Crown before the sheriff who presided at the appellant’s
summary trial, before the Sheriff Appeal Court, who refused her appeal against conviction,
and before this Court that the legal position was clear. The conduct of the police officers in
forcing entry to her home and in taking hold of the appellant in an effort to remove her
therefrom was unlawful.
To continue reading
Request your trial