Bill Of Advocation By James Ayers Against Her Majesty's Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Drummond Young,Lady Smith,Lord Justice Clerk |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] HCJAC 98 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Year | 2015 |
| Published date | 30 October 2015 |
| Docket Number | HCA/2015 |
| Date | 26 February 2015 |
APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
[2015] HCJAC 98
HCA/2015/218/XC
Lord Justice Clerk
Lady Smith
Lord Drummond Young
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by LORD CARLOWAY, the LORD JUSTICE CLERK
in the
BILL OF ADVOCATION
by
JAMES AYRES
Appellant;
against
HER MAJESTY’S ADVOCATE
Respondent:
Appellant: B Gilfedder, Solicitor Advocate; Gilfedder & McInnes (for Trainor Alston, Coatbridge)
Respondent: Edwards AD; the Crown Agent
26 February 2015
[1] The appellant has been indicted on three “bogus workmen” charges relating to incidents in Bishopbriggs, Bearsden and Paisley in October and November 2012. All the charges involved complainers aged between 70 and 80 and two of the charges involved obtaining in excess of £16,000 and £13,000. The appellant was originally remanded on petition on the Bishopbriggs charge at Glasgow Sheriff Court, but had been bailed, prior to full committal, on 21 November 2012. In relation to the remaining two charges, he appeared at Dumbarton and Paisley on 14 and 18 January 2013 and was again released on bail. The first two charges were initially indicted to a First Diet at Glasgow on 14 October, which was continued until 3 January 2014, with a trial diet set for 20 January 2014. However, the Crown decided not to call the case at the continued First Diet, but elected to re‒indict on all three charges in Paisley Sheriff Court.
[2] The indictment, with which the court is now concerned, was served in November 2013, with a First Diet on 23 November 2013 and a trial diet on 9 December 2013. The initial trial diet was postponed until 14 April 2014 on the unopposed motion of the appellant on the basis that disclosure of an unspecified nature was required. The 12 month time limit was extended unopposed until 1 May 2014. The First Diet, which had been set for 1 April, was continued to 9 April, on joint motion of the Crown and the co‒accused, to allow the Crown “to prepare and check the status of witnesses” (whatever that may mean). On 9 April the court was told that the case was ready to proceed to trial.
[3] On 2 May 2014 the trial diet was adjourned, on the unopposed motion of the Crown, because of “pressure of business” until 5 August, with a first diet set for 22 July. The time limit was extended again to 29 August. The appellant maintains that there was also a Crown witness absent on annual leave, but this was not minuted. In the absence, at least, of agreement to the contrary, the court proceeds on the basis that that is not something which the sheriff took into account.
[4] On 22 July 2014, although the co‒accused failed to appear and a warrant was granted for his arrest, the Crown and the appellant stated that they were ready for trial. However, on 18 August the trial diet was once more adjourned, again because of “pressure of business”, this time to 24 November. A first diet was fixed for 12 November and the time limit extended to 12 December 2014. The minute reads that these motions were granted unopposed. Although the appellant maintains that that is not so, the court proceeds on the basis of the accuracy of the minute, again in the absence of agreement to the contrary.
[5] On 12 November 2014, the co‒accused again failed to appear and a warrant was issued for his arrest. On 9 December the Crown moved to adjourn the trial diet and extend the time limit again. The reason given this time was the unavailability of the complainer in the first charge. In terms of a medical certificate, it was said, in very general terms, that he was “medically unfit to attend the court”, but would be available in two or three months. The certificate is dated 3 December and is...
To continue reading
Request your trial