Her Majesty's Advocate V. Craig Collins
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Justice Clerk,Lord Osborne,Lord Mackay of Drumadoon |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] HCJAC 11 |
| Year | 2014 |
| Docket Number | XC190/12 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Published date | 05 February 2014 |
| Date | 15 June 2012 |
| APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY | |
| Lord Carloway Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Osborne | [2014] HCJAC 11 Appeal No: XC190/12 OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LORD CARLOWAY in the Bill of Advocation by HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE Appellant; against CRAIG COLLINS Respondent: _______ |
Act: Wade AD; Crown Agent
Alt: Shead; G Sweeney & Co, Glasgow
15 June 2012
[1] The respondent was indicted to a first diet, at Glasgow Sheriff Court on 19 January 2012, on a charge libelling that, on 14 June 2011 in Tullis Street, Glasgow, being a public place, he had with him a lock knife; contrary to the Criminal Law (Consolidation)(Scotland) Act 1995, section 49(1)). A further charge of possession of cocaine has been withdrawn. The respondent had originally appeared on petition on 15 June 2011, when he was represented by his present agent. He appeared again on 23 June 2011, when the same agent was in attendance. The respondent was then fully committed and remanded in custody.
[2] On 7 September 2011, the agent attended at HM Prison, Addiewell, with a view to consulting with the respondent. This prison is operated by a private company, namely Sodexo Limited. The agent presented his Law Society of Scotland identification card, which contains his photograph and is updated annually. Such a card is accepted as proof of identification at most penal establishments. Nevertheless, the agent was informed that he would require to provide a fingerprint in order to enter the prison. He was advised that the print could, if he so requested, be destroyed after his exit or retained for identification purposes on subsequent visits. The agent refused to provide a fingerprint. He did so on the basis that he considered that this request amounted to a breach of his (the agent's) right to a "private life" enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention. The agent was denied entry.
[3] On 14 October 2011, the respondent sought bail on the basis of this denial, but that application was refused. On 1 November 2011, the respondent lodged a devolution minute. This founded upon Article 6 of the European Convention and, in particular, the right to "have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence" in Article 6(3)(b). It maintained that, by continuing to prosecute the respondent, the appellant was acting in a manner incompatible with the respondent's Article 6 rights. The minute craved the sheriff to hold that: (a) the fingerprint requirement was "unlawful", "impedes the delivery of practical and effective legal assistance" and is thus a breach of Articles 6, 8 and 14 (discrimination); and (b) the respondent had been denied a fair trial by being deprived of adequate facilities in his "preparation for trial". The minute asked the sheriff to "dismiss the Indictment", which had presumably, by that time, been served.
[4] The devolution minute was formally "received" at the first diet on 19 January 2012, when the respondent and the same agent were both present. This diet was adjourned until 31 January, when the respondent and agent were again present. A trial diet was fixed for 12 March, but the first diet was adjourned once more until 23 February, when the respondent was present but represented by a different agent. It was adjourned on that date due to the original agent not being available. A further first diet was set down for 29 February. The respondent and his agent were both present, but the diet was again adjourned, this time until 7 March. A legal debate appears to have taken place over three days from 7 to 9 March, during which the respondent and his agent were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Procurator Fiscal, Alloa Against Ross Porch
...minute did not arise in isolation and had to be related to some procedural process for which a remedy is available. (HMA v Collins [2014] HCJAC 11; Sabiu v Procurator Fiscal, Fort William [2013] HCJAC 160) The criminal justice system did not allow victims or relatives of victims to be direc......