Brian Kidd V. Procurator Fiscal, Edinburgh
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Philip,Lord Justice Clerk,Lord Brodie |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] HCJAC 163 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Date | 04 December 2012 |
| Published date | 14 December 2012 |
| Docket Number | XJ380/12 |
| Year | 2012 |
| APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY | |
| Lord Justice Clerk Lord Brodie Lord Philip | [2012] HCJAC 163 XJ380/12 OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LORD CARLOWAY, the LORD JUSTICE CLERK in BILL OF SUSPENSION by BRIAN KIDD Appellant; against PROCURATOR FISCAL, EDINBURGH Respondent: _____________ |
Appellant: C M Mitchell, Lugton; Beaumont & Co
Respondent: A F Stewart, QC, AD; the Crown Agent
4 December 2012
[1] On 10 October 2011, at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, the appellant pled guilty to charges which libelled that on 12 February 2011 at an address in Caledonian Crescent, Edinburgh, he:
"(1) ... did behave in a threatening or abusive manner which was likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm in that [he] did threaten violence to the occupants there; contrary to section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010; and
(2) ... did intentionally direct a sexual verbal communication at [CJ] and [KM] in that [he] did threaten to rape them; contrary to section 7(1) of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009."
Upon conviction, the sheriff advised the appellant that the offence in charge (2) was a sexual offence to which part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 applied. That statement was the subject of a certificate, issued by the clerk of court, in terms of section 92(2) of the 2003 Act. In practical terms, the sheriff would have told the appellant of the notification requirements and the clerk would have provided the appellant with a written notice detailing the requirements. However, the legal basis for subjecting the appellant to the notification regime stems not from any statement by the court, but from the automatic effect of section 80 of the 2003 Act, which provides that a person becomes subject to that regime as soon as he is convicted of an offence listed in Schedule 3. Paragraph 59J of that schedule lists a contravention of section 7(1) of the 2009 Act.
[2] After sundry procedure, on 21 February 2012 the sheriff deferred sentence on the appellant. At that diet the appellant's agent raised, for the first time, the question of whether the notification requirements under the 2003 Act were compliant with the appellant's right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the European Convention. It should be noted that the appellant had not yet been sentenced. The extent to which any notification requirements will apply to him, and in particular the time period of these requirements, was,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Procurator Fiscal, Alloa Against Ross Porch
...sections of the 1995 Act under section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998. (HMA v Collins, supra; Kidd v Procurator Fiscal, Edinburgh [2012] HCJAC 163) It could not be said that the decision here amounted to a disproportionate interference with the complainer’s rights. [27] It was well known th......