Mark Mccowan V. Procurator Fiscal, Glasgow
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Wheatley,Lady Scott,Lady Dorrian |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] HCJAC 119 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Date | 11 September 2013 |
| Published date | 02 October 2013 |
| Docket Number | XJ522/13 |
| Year | 2013 |
| APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY | |
| Lady Paton Lady Dorrian Lord Wheatley | [2013] HCJAC 119 XJ522/13 OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LADY PATON in BILL OF ADVOCATION by MARK McCOWAN Complainer; against PROCURATOR FISCAL, GLASGOW Respondent: _____________ |
Complainer: S Collins, (Sol Adv); Capital Defence Lawyers (for Bridge Litigation UK Ltd)
Respondent: T Niven Smith, AD; Crown Agent
11 September 2013
[1] The complainer, aged 42, is charged with being concerned in the supplying of heroin on 22 February 2012.
[2] On 12 June 2013 the sheriff granted the Crown's motion to adjourn the fifth trial diet - on that particular occasion due to lack of court time. The complainer has presented a bill of advocation contending that the decision was wrongous and oppressive.
[3] The sequence of events was as follows: 22 February 2012, the alleged offence; 23 February 2012, a plea of not guilty; 30 May 2012, the intermediate diet; 15 June 2012, the first trial diet. This trial diet was postponed on Crown motion because two essential witnesses (addicts said to have purchased heroin from the complainer) were not in attendance at court. On 30 July 2012, the second trial diet took place. This trial diet was postponed on Crown motion because those same two witnesses had not been cited as a result of what was said to be "administrative oversight": the fiscal taking the case had not appreciated the difficulty relating to these two witnesses. On 14 September 2012, the third trial diet took place. This diet was adjourned on joint motion. What occurred that day was that the Crown changed their approach to the case. Because the two drug addicts could not be produced, resort was to be had to CCTV evidence showing their approaches to the complainer. The CCTV evidence was only disclosed to the defence that morning. So, to that extent, the adjournment was attributable to the Crown's change of approach. On 18 January 2013, the fourth trial diet took place. On that particular occasion, one of the police witnesses had to attend a funeral, and the trial was adjourned on Crown motion which was not opposed. Finally, on 12 June 2013, a fresh fifth trial diet called at 1640pm. Court business was such that it had not been called earlier. Again, the trial was adjourned to 7 October 2013 for the reasons given by the sheriff in his report.
[4] We accept that it is usually very much for the local court to decide whether an adjournment should be granted. Lord...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bill Of Advocation By Peter Walker Against The Procurator Fiscal, Edinburgh
...had erred in the exercise of her discretion to adjourn the trial at 5.00pm. Reference was made to McCowan v Procurator Fiscal, Glasgow [2013] HCJAC 119, citing Paterson v McPherson [2012] HCJAC 61, 2012 GWD 19-384, itself referring to Tudhope v Lawrie 1979 JC 44 and Skeen v McLaren 1976 SLT......
-
William Thomas Christensen Against Procurator Fiscal, Paisley
...the decision of the sheriff and deserting the complaint. In support of these submissions we were referred to McCowan v PF Glasgow [2013] HCJAC 119 and Middleton and Another v PF Livingston [2013] HCJAC 49. [7] In response, the advocate depute referred to the procedural history and the fact ......
-
Christensen v Procurator Fiscal
...of bill of advocation. Cases referred to: Bowden v Harvie [2015] HCJAC 11; 2015 SCCR 113; 2015 SCL 325; 2015 GWD 6–122 McCowan v Dunn [2013] HCJAC 119; 2013 SCCR 623; 2013 GWD 32–637 Middleton v Cottam; McAllister v Cottam[2013] HCJAC 49; 2013 GWD 14–296 Paterson v PF, Airdrie [2012] HCJAC ......
- Bowden v Procurator Fiscal