Clancy v Advocate (HM)
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 26 July 2000 |
| Neutral Citation | 2000 SCCR 767 |
| Date | 26 July 2000 |
| Docket Number | No 77 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
JC
LJ-G Rodger, Lord Cowie and Lord Caplan
Procedure—Solemn procedure—Charge to jury—Sheriff raising register and using emphasis when rehearsing defence position in charge to jury—Whether misdirection
The pannel was tried on indictment for assault and robbery. A significant element in the Crown case was a tape-recorded statement which the pannel had made to the police. The Crown relied on the similarities between the statement and the complainer's evidence while the defence founded on the discrepancies between the two accounts. In charging the jury the sheriff rehearsed the similarities and discrepancies and posed certain questions which the jury might wish to consider. The pannel was convicted and appealed to the High Court of Justiciary on the ground, inter alia, that the sheriff's intonations when dealing with this aspect of the case had indicated to the jury that they should give greater weight and attention to the similarities than the discrepancies. In the course of the hearing the High Court listened to the relevant portion of the tape-recorded charge to the jury.
Held (1) that the sheriff had raised the register which he used and placed the emphasis on certain words in such a manner as to suggest that the answers to the questions which he posed would be unfavourable to the pannel (p 640B–C); and (2) that to that extent, the sheriff had failed to take sufficient care to avoid trespassing upon the jury's province as masters of the facts and had consequently misdirected the jury (p 640F); and appeal allowed.
Simpson v HM AdvocateSC 1952 JC 1 applied.
Carolyne Clark was charged on an indictment at the instance of the Right Honourable Colin David Boyd, Esq, QC, Her Majesty's Advocate, the libel of which set forth a charge of assault and robbery.
The cause came to trial in the sheriffdom of Tayside, Central and Fife at Falkirk.
The pannel was convicted.
The pannel thereafter appealed against conviction to the High Court of Justiciary.
The cause called before the High Court of Justiciary comprising the Lord Justice-General (Rodger), Lord Cowie and Lord Caplan for a hearing.
At advising, on 26 July 2000, the opinion of the court was delivered by the Lord Justice-General (Rodger).
Opinion of the Court—[1] The appellant is Carolyne Clark who was convicted at the sheriff court at Falkirk of a charge of assault and robbery. She has appealed against conviction on the ground of misdirection by the presiding sheriff in his charge to the jury.
[2] The appellant's written grounds of appeal specified three ways in which the sheriff was said to have misdirected the jury. The first was to the effect that he had put to the jury an inaccurate version of one aspect of the complainer's evidence. The solicitor-advocate who appeared for the appellant readily acknowledged that, even if this had been so, the particular alleged inaccuracy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
William Beck V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...at 3; Jones v HM Advocate 1995 SLT 787, LJC (Ross) at 789; Silverman v HM Advocate 1999 JC 117, LJC (Cullen) at 121; Clark v HM Advocate 2000 JC 637, LJG (Rodger) at para [7]). The matter required to be judged objectively (Harkness v HM Advocate 2006 SCCR 342, Lord Abernethy, delivering the......
-
SKA v The Queen
...(2006) 80 ALJR 458 at 494 [192]; 224 ALR 1 at 47. 29CSR Ltd v Della Maddalena (2006) 80 ALJR 458 at 472 [56]; 224 ALR 1 at 16. 30 2000 JC 637. 31 [2010] VSCA 40 32 Repealed by s 422(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic). 33 R v El Moustafa [2010] VSCA 40 at [46]. 34 R v El Moustafa ......
-
Green v HM Advocate
...690 Brown v HM Advocate 1993 SCCR 382 Campbell v HM Advocate [2019] HCJAC 58; 2020 JC 47; 2019 SLT 1127; 2019 SCCR 367 Clark v HM Advocate 2000 JC 637; 2000 SLT 1107; 2000 SCCR 767 Crombie v HM Advocate [2014] HCJAC 118; 2015 SCCR 29; 2015 SCL 144; 2014 GWD 36–669 Daniel v HM Advocate [2018......
-
Notes Of Appeal Against Conviction And Sentence By (first) Paul Green, (second) Lee Noonan And (third) Robbie Darren Brown
...possibility of the 17 judge being biased (Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357; Pullar v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 391; Clark v HM Advocate 2000 JC 637). [40] The remaining grounds of appeal on conviction were that the trial judge had erred in failing properly to direct the jury that, if the......