Namyslak v Advocate (HM)
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Year | 1995 |
| Date | 1995 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
3 cases
-
Indulis Lukstins V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...The common law allowed the fingerprinting of persons who had been arrested and charged (Adair v McGarry 1933 JC 72; Namyslak v HM Advocate 1995 SLT 528 at 529-530). [16] As enacted, sub-section 18(2) of the 1995 Act provided that the police could take fingerprints and similar external impre......
-
HM Advocate v Welsh or Cowie
...58 Lees v WestonSCUNK 1989 JC 35; 1989 SLT 446; 1989 SCCR 177 McGovern v HM AdvocateSC 1950 JC 33; 1950 SLT 133 Namyslak v HM AdvocateUNK 1995 SLT 528; 1994 SCCR 140 Wade v RobertsonSC 1948 JC 117; 1948 SLT 491 Textbooks etc. referred to: Renton, RW, and Brown, HH, Criminal Procedure accord......
- HM Advocate v Lukstins
2 books & journal articles
-
Subject Index
...[1965] AC 574 .... 169N v HM Advocate 2003 SLT 761 ........69 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF 275 INDEXESNamyslak v HMA 1995 SLT 528 .. 88 , 95Nanan v The State [1986] AC 860 .. 136Ohio v Roberts, 448 US 56 (1980) 2–27,149–164, 241, 244, 247, 256Osman v Attorney-General Transv......
-
Irregularly Obtained Real Evidence: The Scottish Solution?
...SCCR 361 at 368–9), an opinion with which the third judge, LordWylie, simply concurred.88 1998 JC 63.89 2001 SCCR 348.90 See also Namyslak 1995 SLT 528 where the court excused the irregularity essentially because itmade no difference in terms of 96 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PR......