William Beggs V. Her Majesty's Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Emslie,Lord Justice General,Lord Reed |
| Judgment Date | 12 May 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] HCJAC 49 |
| Published date | 12 May 2011 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Date | 12 May 2011 |
| Docket Number | XC997/03 |
| APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY | |
| Lord Justice General Lord Reed Lord Emslie | [2011] HCJAC 49 Appeal No: XC997/03 OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by THE LORD JUSTICE GENERAL in APPLICATION by WILLIAM FREDERICK IAN BEGGS Applicant; for Reduction of the punishment part of his sentence of life imprisonment _______ |
Applicant: Shead, McKenzie, Mitchell; John Pryde & Co., Edinburgh
Respondent: Mulholland, Q.C., Solicitor General, A.D.; Crown Agent
12 May 2011
Proceedings up to conviction
[1] The applicant was on 12 October 2001 convicted after trial of the murder of Barry George Wallace. The terms of the charge of which he was found guilty were:
"on 5 or 6 December 1999 at 2B Doon Place, Bellfield, Kilmarnock you did assault Barry George Wallace, 38 Cumbrae Drive, Kilmarnock, place handcuffs on his arms and legs, struggle with him, punch him on the face, restrain him, puncture his arm with a needle or similar instrument and penetrate his hinder parts with your private member, all to his severe injury and you did murder him and further you did dismember his body and dispose of the dismembered parts in Loch Lomond, Stirlingshire, and in the sea at Barassie, Troon, Ayrshire."
The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment, a punishment part of twenty years being specified.
[2] Within a short period of the victim's death suspicion fell on the applicant. On 17 December 1999 a search warrant was obtained and executed in respect of his home address and on 21 December a petition warrant granted for his apprehension. By this time he had left Scotland for the Netherlands, where he was arrested and remanded in custody by the Amsterdam District Court. Extradition proceedings were initiated in January 2000. The application was heard by the Amsterdam District Court on 28 March. On 11 April it granted extradition in respect of the charges of murder and abduction. The applicant appealed against that decision. On 26 September the Supreme Court of the Netherlands upheld the decision of the District Court. The case was referred to the Dutch Minister of Justice who on 14 November authorised the extradition of the applicant, who then lodged an application for judicial review of the Minister's decision. On 5 January 2001 that application was refused. Four days later the applicant was returned to the United Kingdom. On 10 January he appeared on petition at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court and was remanded in custody. On 17 January he was judicially examined and again remanded in custody. On 14 March an indictment was served on him with a trial diet of 17 April 2001. The applicant lodged a number of minutes raising preliminary issues. These resulted in the postponement of the trial diet to 14 May. Shortly before that diet the applicant lodged two further minutes and sought a further postponement of the trial. Argument on these minutes was heard and refused by a single judge on 29 June. The applicant appealed that decision to the High Court, which heard his appeal on 7 and 8 August. On 17 August it gave its written reasons for refusing the appeal. A further application by the applicant was heard and disposed of (by the trial judge) on 17 September. On 18 September the trial began. It ran until 12 October 2001, as earlier stated. On that date the applicant was convicted and sentenced.
Initial steps to obtain leave to appeal
[3] On 17 October 2001 the applicant lodged intimation of intention to appeal against his conviction. On 20 December he sought an extension of the six week period for lodging a note of grounds of appeal, giving as reasons the volume of documentation and the pressure of work on his senior counsel. A six week extension was granted on 21 December. On 29 January 2002 the applicant made a further application for extension of time to lodge a note of grounds of appeal, giving as reasons that his senior counsel required further information and that transcripts of the evidence would also be required. On 30 January a further six week extension was granted. On 7 February a third application for extension of time to lodge a note of grounds of appeal was sought, the reason given being that it had been decided following consultation with the applicant that an appeal against sentence should also be taken. On 11 February a further five week extension was granted. On 8 March a fourth application for an extension of the time to lodge a note of grounds of appeal was made, the reasons given being that a transcript of certain evidence given at the trial was required; the applicant also wished to obtain an opinion from English counsel regarding pre-trial publicity and an expert opinion in respect of specialty in the extradition process. On 11 March a further extension of six weeks was granted. On 18 April a fifth application for extension of the time to lodge a note of grounds of appeal was sought, the reasons given being that transcripts of the relevant evidence had only just been received and that expert evidence was being sought. On 23 April a further extension of six weeks was granted. On 21 May a sixth application for extension of time to lodge a note of grounds of appeal was made, the reasons given being that it was more difficult to arrange consultations with the applicant who had been moved from prison in Edinburgh to Peterhead Prison. On 22 May a further extension of six weeks was granted.
[4] Eventually on 2 July 2002 the applicant lodged a note of grounds of appeal against conviction and sentence. This was an elaborate document. It set forth eight grounds of appeal against conviction, each ground being subdivided into a number of subparagraphs - ground 6 had 26 such subparagraphs - and a ground of appeal against the punishment part specified as part of the life sentence. The next stage was for the trial judge to prepare a report to the court giving his opinion on the case generally and on the grounds of appeal. That report was received on 28 November 2002. This was inevitably a detailed document. It ran to 28 pages. The papers were then placed before a single judge for consideration as to whether leave to appeal should be granted and, if so, on what grounds. Leave was on 21 December 2002 granted under section 107(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 but only in respect of certain of the grounds advanced, leave being refused in respect of the remainder. Detailed reasons were given for such refusal. That decision and reasons were intimated on 6 January 2003.
The misconceived procedure
[5] The applicant was dissatisfied with the restriction to the scope of the grounds of appeal which he was granted leave to argue. He sought and was granted time to consider legal advice. A period of eight weeks and later a further period of two weeks were allowed for that purpose. On 17 March 2003 the applicant's agents lodged an "appeal to the second sift", that is, an application to the High Court under section 107(4) of the 1995 Act. That application was misconceived, it truly being available only where leave to appeal, against conviction or against sentence, has been wholly refused. This misconception was held generally in the legal profession at the time. In the applicant's case this misconception led to a number of procedures, including an application to the nobile officium of the court. The misconception was ultimately dispelled when on 8 December 2004 the High Court ruled that, where leave to appeal is granted on a restricted basis and an applicant is dissatisfied with that decision, the appropriate resort is by application under section 107(8) of the Act. On 26 April 2005 the applicant made such an application. An oral hearing on that application took place on 28 October and on 25 November 2005 the application was granted.
Proceedings for recovery of documents etc.
[6] On 16 January 2006 proposed reformulated grounds of appeal were lodged. On 11 July these reformulated grounds were allowed to be received by the court. In the meantime the applicant had made and been granted a number of further applications for transcription of parts of the trial proceedings. By July 2006 it had become evident that the applicant also now wished to recover further documentation for the purposes of his appeal. A long process for recovery from various persons, including Strathclyde Police, then ensued. The applicant's first petition for recovery was lodged on 31 July 2006. Answers were lodged both by the Crown and by Strathclyde Police. On 23 August the Crown provided the applicant with certain documents. On 25 September the applicant sent to the Crown an amended petition for recovery of documents. On 10 October the Crown and Strathclyde Police were allowed 14 days to lodge answers to the amended petition. On 24 October the Crown lodged answers. On 26 October representatives of the parties had a lengthy meeting to discuss recovery of documents and related issues of disclosure. On 31 October the court was advised that productive meetings had taken place. On 3 November there was correspondence between the applicant's agents and the Crown in the course of which the former advised that an additional volume of materials related to the issue of pre-trial publicity would shortly be available. On 17 November such materials were provided. On 23 November the Crown sent to the applicant's agents copies of police statements for civilian witnesses who had given evidence at the trial. On 28 November the court appointed the petition for recovery of documents to proceed to a full hearing. On 11 December the applicant's agents requested the Crown to disclose a variety of documents not previously requested. On 21 December the Crown responded. On 7 February 2007 the court granted warrant for a fresh petition for recovery of documents - directed at documents held by the sheriff clerk at Kilmarnock and by the Scottish Ministers. On 27 February the Scottish Ministers advised that material falling within a call directed against them was...
To continue reading
Request your trial