McGlennan v Hastie
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 29 November 1994 |
| Date | 29 November 1994 |
| Docket Number | No 5 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
JC
LJ-C Ross Lords Morison, Cullen
Procedure—Summary procedure—Trial—Adjournment—Crown erroneously advised that all Crown witnesses present prior to trial—Whether sheriff erred in refusing adjournment, treating Crown case as closed and acquitting pannel—Whether oppressive
Prior to the commencement of a trial against the respondent the court officer mistakenly informed the Crown that all its witnesses were present. In fact, an essential witness was absent. On realising the absence, the Crown moved for an adjournment so that the essential witness's evidence could be taken. The sheriff refused the motion and treated the Crown case as closed. The respondent led no evidence. Thereafter the sheriff was informed that the witness had been contacted and would be available to give evidence in the afternoon. The sheriff was then moved to adjourn from 11.15 am to 2 pm but refused to do so. The sheriff then found the respondent not guilty. The Crown appealed by bill of advocation to the High Court of Justiciary against the sheriff's decision.
Held that the sheriff had failed to have proper regard to the interests of the public in the prosecution of the case which would suffer or had suffered prejudice by the refusal of an adjournment; and bill passed.
Tudhope v LawrieSC 1979 JC 44 followed.
John G McGlennan, procurator fiscal, Kilmarnock, brought a bill of advocation against David Hastie seeking an order of the High Court of Justiciary to recall the decisions of the sheriff at Kilmarnock to refuse to adjourn a trial diet and to acquit the respondent from a charge of assault.
The bill called before the High Court of Justiciary, comprising the Lord Justice-Clerk (Ross), Lord Morison and Lord Cullen for a hearing on 29 November 1994.
Eo die, at advising, the opinion of the court was delivered by the Lord Justice-Clerk (Ross).
Opinion Of The Court—This is a bill of advocation at the instance of the procurator fiscal, Kilmarnock. The respondent is David Hastie. The respondent went to trial in the sheriff court at Kilmarnock on a summary complaint charging him with assault to injury and a contravention of sec 3(1)(b) of the Bail etc (Scotland) Act 1980. It is explained in the statement of facts for the complainer that three witnesses had been cited by the complainer to give evidence at the trial. Prior to the commencement of the trial the...
To continue reading
Request your trial