GEORGE OUTRAM & Company Ltd v LEES
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 24 October 1991 |
| Date | 24 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 5 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
FULL BENCH.
L. J.-C. Ross, Lords Morison, Milligan, Cowie and Cullen.
Crime—Contempt of court—Publishers and editor found guilty of contempt of court in respect of report of proceedings in trial on indictment in sheriff court—Whether bill of suspension appealing against finding of contempt competent—Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (cap. 21), sec. 230.1
Procedure—Solemn procedure—Appeal—Bill of suspension—Competency of appeal by way of bill of suspension against finding of contempt of court in sheriff court solemn procedure—Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (cap. 21), sec. 230.1
Section 230 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 enacts that: "It shall not be competent to appeal to the High Court by bill of suspension against any conviction, sentence, judgment or order pronounced in any proceedings on indictment in the sheriff court."
Two accused persons appeared on indictment in the sheriff court and came to trial before a sheriff and jury. During the course of that trial a newspaper published a report of proceedings which had taken place on the day of publication of the newspaper. On the following day, when the trial recommenced, agents representing the accused, outwith the presence of the jury, submitted to the court that the reports in the newspaper contained information which ought to have been kept from the jury and that the accused had thereby been prejudiced. The agents requested that the sheriff deal with the matter as contempt of court. The sheriff then adjourned the trial and ultimately found the publishers and editor of the newspaper guilty of contempt and proceeded to fine them. The complainers thereafter appealed by way of bill of suspension to the High Court of Justiciary, arguing that the sheriff had erred in finding them in contempt of court. Before the High Court the Crown conceded that the sheriff had erred in finding that there had been contempt but maintained that the appropriate procedure invoked by the presentation of a bill of suspension had been incompetent by reason of sec. 230 of the 1975 Act.
Held (by a court of five judges) (1) that although it was unlikely that Parliament intended to give no right of appeal against the finding of contempt of court made in the course of proceedings on indictment in the sheriff court, nevertheless, effect had to be given to the language which Parliament had used in the statute and Parliament had clearly stated that it should not be competent to appeal to the High Court by way of bill of suspension against "any conviction, sentence, judgment or order pronounced in any proceedings on indictment in the sheriff court"; (2) that in the minute of proceedings relating to the trial in question it was recorded inter aliathat the court held the complainers to be in contempt of court and imposed fines upon them which plainly amounted to a conviction and sentence against the complainers pronounced in proceedings on indictment in that court and was, in any event, an order pronounced in such proceedings; (3) that as those convictions and sentences were plainly pronounced in such proceedings the appeal against them by way of bill of suspension was not competent by virtue of sec. 230 of the 1975 Act; and bill refused as being incompetent.
Butterworth v. Herron 1975 S. L. T. (Notes) 56overruled.
Observed that the proper procedure in this case ought to have been by way of a petition to the nobile officium.
George Outram & Company Limited and George McKechnie, the publishers and editor respectively of the Evening Timesnewspaper brought a bill of suspension in the High Court of Justiciary the terms of which are adequately set forth in the opinion of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
EXPRESS Newspapers Plc PETITIONERS
...v Scotsman Publications Ltd [not reported] (1998) GWD 21–1060 Kemp and Others, Petitioners 1982 JC 29 Outram (George) & Co Ltd v LeesSC 1992 JC 17 Wylie and Another v HM Advocate 1966 SLT149 Textbooks etc referred to: Alison, Criminal Law, ii, 23 Hume, Commentaries, ii, 463,504 and 508 Repo......
-
Petition Of Hjm V. Ls For An Order Under The Child Abduction And Custody Act 1985
...was said to be competent. Support for the competency of the suggestion was said to be found in George Outram and Company Limited v Lees 1992 JC 17. In that case, the complainers sought to challenge a finding of contempt of court by way of Bill of Suspension. The court decided that that proc......