Brown v HM Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Year | 1966 |
| Date | 1966 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
14 cases
-
Luke Mitchell V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...is whether what has taken place has been fair or not? (See the opinion of the Lord Justice General (Clyde) in Brown v HM Advocate 1966 S.L.T. 105 at p.107). In each case where the admissibility of answers by a suspect to police questioning becomes an issue it will be necessary to consider t......
-
Ambrose v Harris (Procurator Fiscal)
...worked well in practice is whether what has taken place has been fair or not? (see the opinion of the Lord Justice General (Clyde) in Brown v HM Advocate 1966 SLT 105 at 107). In each case where the admissibility of answers by a suspect to police questioning becomes an issue it will be nec......
-
David Gilroy V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...been at the stage of taking statements and the appellant was not the sole person whom the police had to speak to (see Brown v HM Advocate 1966 SLT 105, LJG (Clyde) at 108). There was nothing to suggest that the police had, at the time of taking the statements, sufficiently focussed their en......
-
Her Majesty's Advocate V. Lee Everton Higgins &c
...the first accused submitted that the test of admissibility was one of fairness: Chalmers v H M Advocate 1954 JC 66; Brown v H M Advocate 1966 SLT 105; H M Advocate v Graham 1991 SCCR 56. English authorities were not relevant. In the present case, the rules of fair dealing had been flagrantl......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
Chalmers to Cadder: Full Circle on Police Interrogation?
...law protects a suspect from “unfair police interrogation” (my emphasis) but not from straightforward questions.3737See also Brown v HMA 1966 SLT 105 per Lord Justice General Clyde at 107. To render the accused's admission inadmissible in this latter case would amount to “a wholly unwarrante......