Hull v H. M. Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 23 February 1945 |
| Date | 23 February 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 14. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord Justice-Clerk. Lord Mackay. Ld. Stevenson.
Procedure—Sheriff and Jury—Adjournment of diet—At first diet adjournment of Court to date later than that of second diet—Whether second diet adjourned by implication—Effect on proceedings after date of second diet.
An accused, charged on an indictment in the Sheriff Court, was required to attend on 7th September for the first diet and on 19th September for the second diet. On 7th September the diet was adjourned until 9th September for disposal of objections to relevancy, and again on 9th September until 14th September, the debate not having been concluded. On 14th September the Sheriff-substitute adjourned the Court until 21st September for judgment, when he repelled the objections. The accused was subsequently found guilty by a jury.
The Court on appeal quashed the conviction, holdingthat the instance fell on 19th September, the date of the second diet, and that all subsequent proceedings were invalid, in respect that the second diet, which was peremptory, had not been adjourned, adjournment being competent only on the day of the diet and not by anticipation on a day before its date.
Observations upon the law relating to the adjournment of diets in criminal cases.
Mrs Jean Milne Gracie or Hull was charged upon an indictment in Glasgow Sheriff Court with defrauding the Corporation of Glasgow by evading payment of assessments.
The accused was tried by a Sheriff-substitute (N. M. L. Walker) and a jury and convicted. She was fined £150 by the Sheriff-substitute, and in default of payment within six months sentenced to four months' imprisonment. Thereafter she presented an application for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence.
The case came before the High Court of Justiciary on 30th January 1945, when the Court ex proprio motu called attention to the fact that the rules of criminal procedure applicable to solemn procedure in the Sheriff Court had not been followed, and they ordered transmission from the Sheriff Court of the full records bearing upon the conduct of the prosecution.
The facts as ascertained from the record of the proceedings are thus narrated by the Lord Justice-Clerk in his opinion:—"On 22nd August 1944, a general warrant was granted in the form of Schedule B to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1887,1 authorising citation of persons accused, witnesses and jurors, upon the narrative that the Sheriff of Lanarkshire was to hold a sitting for the trial of persons accused on indictment on 19th September 1944, at 10a.m., with continuation of days. The authority for this warrant was section 23 of the Act. On 24th August an indictment was served on the appellant requiring her attendance within the Summary Criminal Court on 7th September at 10 a.m. for the first diet, and in the Criminal Court House on 19th September at 10 a.m. for the second diet."
"When the first diet was called on 7th September, objections to the relevancy of the indictment were stated on behalf of the panel, and the diet was adjourned of consent till 9th September at 10 a.m.On 9th September a debate on the relevancy took place, and, owing to the lateness of the hour, the diet was adjourned till 14th September at 10.30 a.m. On 14th September the debate was concluded, and the Sheriff-substitute then adjourned “the Court” not to the second diet on 19th September but until 21st September at 10a.m. “for judgment,” and ordained the panel then to appear under pains of law. Such an order is most unusual, and, in my experience, unique."
"The second diet in ten other cases had been fixed for 19th September, and these cases were taken successively on 19th and 20th September. At the conclusion of the proceedings on 19th September the record bears that the Sheriff adjourned the Court and the “whole remaining cases” until 20th September at 10 a.m. At the conclusion of the proceedings on 20th September a similar minute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
H. M. Advocate v Walker
...on that day, the instance fell as did all that had gone before, including the indictment of 6th April 1981. Hull v. H. M. AdvocateSC 1945 J.C. 83 followed. (2) That there was therefore no indictment served in relation to the proceedings before the Sheriff on 21st May which had been served o......
-
MARTIN ROBERTSON v K FRAME (Procurator Fiscal, Aberdeen)
...3 WLR 1488; [2002] 4 All ER 1 Gilchrist v Anderson and WalkerUNK (1838) 1 D 32 Gillies v Jeffrey (1839) 2 Swinton 454 Hull v HM AdvocateSC 1945 JC 83; 1945 SLT 202 Law and Nicol v HM Advocate 1973 SLT (Notes) 14 Lochridge v MillerUNK 2002 SLT 906; 2002 SCCR 628 Low v Rankine 1917 JC 39; 191......
-
Martin Robertson And Seamus O'dalaigh+kevin Ruddy V. Procurator Fiscal Aberdeen+procurator Fiscal Perth
...1920 J.C. 74). [17]It is also of assistance to consider solemn cases in which similar questions have arisen. In Hull v. H.M. Advocate 1945 J.C. 83, in a passage at page 86 which was followed in later cases, the Lord Justice Clerk (Cooper) pointed out that by reason of the peremptory nature ......
-
Ruddy v Procurator Fiscal, Perth
...Cassidy v Friel 1995 SLT 391 Coventry v DouglasSC 1944 JC 13; 1944 SLT 129 Czajkowski v LewisSC 1956 JC 8; 1956 SLT 33 Hull v HM AdvocateSC 1945 JC 83; 1945 SLT 202 Jones v CarnegieSCUNK 2004 JC 136; 2004 SLT 609; 2004 SCCR 361 Kelly v Smith (1904) 4 Adam 466; 12 SLT 530 Law and Nicol v HM ......