Graham Gordon For Judicial View
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lady Clark Of Calton,Lord Wheatley,Lord Menzies |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] CSIH 101 |
| Year | 2013 |
| Docket Number | P957/12 |
| Date | 29 November 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Published date | 29 November 2013 |
| EXTRA DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION | |
| [2013] CSIH 101 | |
| Lord Menzies Lady Clark of Calton Lord Wheatley | P957/12 OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LORD MENZIES in the Reclaiming Motion by GRAHAM GORDON Reclaimer; for Judicial Review _______________ |
Alt: Moynihan QC; Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
6 November 2013
[1] In this reclaiming motion the reclaimer seeks to overturn the decision of the Lord Ordinary of 24 January 2013 and to have the court remit the issue contained in section 194C(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, namely, whether it is in the interests of justice that this matter should be referred to the High Court, to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for reconsideration.
[2] The central feature of the submissions for the reclaimer was that the Commission failed in its statement of reasons, and supplementary statement of reasons, to have proper regard to the need for finality and certainty in the determination of criminal proceedings. That requirement was inserted into section 194C of the 1995 Act by section 7(3)(b) of the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010 with effect from 30 October 2010. No definition is given in the Act of the term "finality and certainty" and it was submitted for the reclaimer that the Commission required to explain what it understood by this term and to give adequate reasons to justify its decision that it was not in the interests of justice that a reference to the High Court should be made. We do not consider that there is any substance in this submission. The term "the need for finality and certainty in the determination of criminal proceedings" is not a term which requires explanation or elucidation by this court. It is a term which may be readily understood.
[3] The submissions for the reclaimer focused, to a significant extent, on what Mr Coll described as "the bridging of the gap" between the date on which this case was finally disposed of on appeal, namely 6 May 2010, and the issuing of the Supreme Court's decision in Cadder v HM Advocate No 2 [2010] UKSC 43: 2011 SC (UKSC) 13. However, we do not consider that this gap is of central importance in the issue which the Commission had to decide. The important point is that this case had been finally concluded, or to use the terminology of Lord Hope of Craighead in Cadder "it had become closed", some...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gordon v Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Scotland)
...[2017] UKSC 20 THE SUPREME COURT Hilary Term On appeal from: [2013] CSIH 101 Lord Kerr Lord Clarke Lord Reed Lord Hughes Lord Hodge Gordon (Appellant) and Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Respondent) (Scotland) Appellant Mungo Bovey QC Gerry Coll (Instructed by Drummond Miller LLP......