GEORGE McCUTCHEON v HM ADVOCATE
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Neutral Citation | 2002 SCCR 101 |
| Year | 2002 |
| Date | 2002 |
| Court | Unspecified Court (Scotland) |
-
- 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
15 cases
-
Beattie v HM Advocate
...2003 SLT 1053; 2003 SCCR 490 King v HM AdvocateSCUNK 1999 JC 226; 1999 SLT 604; 1999 SCCR 330 McCutcheon v HM AdvocateUNK 2002 SLT 27; 2002 SCCR 101 McDonald v HM AdvocateUNKUNK [2008] UKPC 46; 2008 SLT 993; 2008 SCCR 954; [2009] HRLR 3; [2009] UKHRR 46 McInnes v HM AdvocateSCUNK [2008] HCJ......
-
Appeals Against Conviction And Sentence By (1) Gary William Sim; (2) James Edward Watson And (3) Paul John Watson
...judge ought to have directed the jury that they required to consider its truth in so far as it exculpated him (McCutcheon v HM Advocate 2002 SCCR 101 at para [16]; McIntosh v HM Advocate 2003 SCCR 137 at para [18]). Whether it was a mixed statement was for the judge to have assessed (McGirr......
-
Adam Morrison V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...admissible evidence, both for the Crown and for the defence in that it was a "mixed" statement, as discussed in McCutcheon v HM Advocate 2002 SCCR 101. The sheriff should have explained that to the jury. He did not do so. Rather, in relation to a previous inconsistent statement made by Crow......
-
Robert Mcphee Against Her Majesty's Advocate
...as contained in his police interview. The interview constituted a mixed statement within the meaning of McCutcheon v HM Advocate 2002 SCCR 101. No specific direction had been given about the status of the statement or how the jury should deal with it. The judge ought to have said that what ......
Request a trial to view additional results