Beggs, Petitioner
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 08 December 2004 |
| Date | 08 December 2004 |
| Docket Number | No 18 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
Appeal Court, High Court of Justiciary
Lord Justice-General (Cullen of Whitekirk), Lord Marnoch, Lord Macfadyen
Justiciary - Procedure - Leave to appeal - Whether first sift judge allowing appeal on only certain grounds is a refusal of leave in respect of others - What procedure to be followed - Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (cap 46), sec 107
Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 provides for a procedure for the granting of leave to appeal and is set out in full in the opinion of the court.
The petitioner was convicted on a charge of murder after trial in the High Court and sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment. He appealed against conviction and sentence. The court granted leave to appeal but only on certain grounds (the first sift). The petitioner appealed against the refusal and his appeal (the second sift) was refused for the reasons given for the first refusal. The petitioner lodged a petition seeking the quashing of the second sift on the ground that no adequate reasons had been given.
Held that: (1) grounds which have not been specified by the first sift judge are not grounds in respect of which leave to appeal has been refused but are grounds which may not be founded on unless the court grants leave on cause shown (para 7); (2) the same applies to an application in relation to subsec (4) (para 8); (3) an appellant who obtains leave to appeal at the first or second sift but is dissatisfied with the extent to which he may rely on his grounds of appeal may apply to the court for leave in accordance with subsec (8) and such an application is considered in open court (para 9); (4) if an appellant has obtained leave to appeal at the first sift, where the first sift judge had specified only some of his grounds as arguable, it is not possible for him to apply for leave to appeal under subsec (4) (para 9); (5) the petitioner's application under sec 107(4) was not competent nor was the decision of the second sift judges intimated in the letter dated 25 August 2003; and prayer of petition granted to the extent of setting aside the said decision.
William Frederick Iain Beggs was convicted on a charge of murder after trial in the High Court and sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment, on 12 October 2001. He appealed against conviction and sentence. The court (Lord Bonomy) granted leave to appeal but only on certain grounds. The petitioner appealed against the refusal and his appeal was refused for the reasons given by Lord Bonomy. The petitioner lodged a petition seeking the quashing of the second sift on the ground that no adequate reasons had been given.
The cause called before the High Court comprising the Lord Justice-General (Cullen of Whitekirk), Lord Marnoch and Lord Madfadyen for a hearing. On 8 December 2004, the opinion of the Court was delivered by the Lord Justice-General (Cullen of Whitekirk)-
Opinion of the Court- [1] On 12 October 2001 after trial in the High Court at Edinburgh the petitioner was convicted of a charge of murder and was sentenced to life...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
William Frederick Ian Beggs V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...followed in the present case, albeit no doubt common practice at the time - was incompetent. The decision is reported as Beggs petitioner 2005 JC 174; 2005 SCCR 47. [4] Following that decision, the appellant duly lodged an application in terms of Section 107(8) of the 1995 Act, which was he......
-
William Frederick Ian Beggs V. The Scottish Ministers
...the scope of the grounds of appeal which he could argue, he required to make an application under section 107(8) (Beggs, Petitioner 2005 JC 174). That was the stage which the criminal appeal proceedings had reached when the Lord Ordinary dealt with the first hearing in the present petition ......
-
William Beggs V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...the purposes of subsection (7) of section 107. For the reasons given in the opinion of the court dated 8 December 2004 (Beggs, Petitioner 2005 J. C. 174) an application to the second sift under subsection (4) of section 107 was incompetent. In these circumstances application has been made t......