Fraser v HM Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] HCJAC 27,2008 SCCR 407,[2008] HCJAC 26 |
| Date | 2008 |
| 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
5 cases
-
Meighan v HM Advocate
...v Edinburgh Corporation (No 2) 1953 SC 34; 1953 SLT 54 Fox v HM Advocate 1998 JC 94; 1998 SLT 335; 1998 SCCR 115 Fraser v HM Advocate [2008] HCJAC 26; 2008 SCCR 407; 2008 SCL 776; 2008 GWD 17-298 Gilmour v HM Advocate [2007] HCJAC 48; 2007 SLT 893; 2007 SCCR 417; 2007 SCL 52 Gilroy v HM Adv......
-
Ashok Kalyanjee V. Her Majesty's Advocate
... ... Would it have affected the advice given and the decision to plead? This was not radically different from a consideration in a defective representation case of what a responsible counsel might have done. The court required to use its own experience in such matters. [59] As it was put in Fraser v HM Advocate 2008 SCCR 407 (LJC (Gill) at para [132]) the onus was on the appellant to provide an explanation of whether the new evidence would have been capable of being regarded by a reasonable jury as credible and reliable. It was not clear how the assumption (at para [134]), that the ... ...
-
Fraser v HM Advocate
...[2011] UKSC 24 " class="content__heading content__heading--depth1"> [2011] UKSC 24 THE SUPREME COURT Easter Term On appeal from: [2009] HCJAC 27 Lord Hope, Deputy President Lord Rodger Lord Brown Lord Kerr Lord Dyson Fraser (Appellant) and Her Majesty's Advocate (Respondent) (Scotla......
-
David Lilburn Against Her Majesty's Advocate
... ... at the trial. In Campbell v HM Advocate ( supra, Lord McCluskey at 167), “reasonable explanation” had been described as the key which opened the door to the hearing of new evidence. If that key were missing or did not work, the evidence could not be taken into account (see also Fraser v HM Advocate 2008 SCCR 407, LJC (Gill) at para [131]; Barr v HM Advocate 1999 SCCR 13 at 17-18; Cameron v HM Advocate (No.2) 2008 SCCR 748 at para [10]; and Lucas v HM Advocate 2009 SCCR 892 at paras [21]-[22]). [106] A period of psychiatric assessment prior to the trial had ... ...
Request a trial to view additional results