Runham v Westwater
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 14 February 1995 |
| Date | 14 February 1995 |
| Docket Number | No 12 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
JC
LJ-C Ross, Lords McCluskey, Morison
Appeal—Advocation—Sheriff hearing evidence under reservation—Sheriff refusing to rule on admissibility of evidence at the stage of no case to answer submission—Whether competent thereafter to appeal by bill of advocation—Whether sheriff erred
An accused person appeared on summary complaint in the sheriff court. During the course of the Crown case the defence objected to certain evidence. The sheriff allowed the evidence to be heard under reservation of its admissibility. At the close of the Crown case the defence requested that the sheriff rule upon the admissibility of the evidence which had been objected to prior to making a no case to answer submission. The sheriff decided that it was inappropriate for him to rule upon that matter at that stage. The trial proceeded and a submission of no case to answer was made which was subsequently rejected by the sheriff. The trial was thereafter adjourned to enable the defence to consider its position. The defence thereafter brought a bill of advocation against the sheriff's decision. At the appeal court hearing, the Crown conceded that the sheriff's decision had been erroneous but contended that the bill of advocation was incompetent.
Held (1) that what was complained of was an irregularity of procedure in that the sheriff had erroneously considered that it was not competent for him to rule upon the admissibility of the reserved evidence at the conclusion of the Crown case; (2)that, as a result of the sheriff's position, the complainer had been placed in the position that he had been unable to put forward his submission of no case to answer without knowing whether or not this particular evidence, which had been allowed under reservation, was admissible; (3) that that was prejudicial to the complainer and was not something which could necessarily be rectified at a later stage; so that (4) the case was an exceptional one where it was competent for the defence to bring a bill of advocation under summary procedure even though the trial had not yet concluded; and bill passed.
Brian Keith Runham presented a bill of advocation to the High Court of Justiciary the terms of which set forth that: “(1). The complainer was charged on a summary complaint at the instance of the respondent at Dornoch sheriff court with two charges, namely (1) theft and (2) attempted fraud....
-
(2) . Said summary complaint first called on 14 April 1994. The complainer pled not guilty. A trial diet was fixed for 22 June 1994 but was adjourned to 14 September 1994. On that date the trial was further adjourned and trial dates fixed for 12, 13 and 14 October 1994. On said dates the complainer adhered to his pleas of not guilty and evidence was led on behalf of the respondent.
-
(3) . In the course of said trial, a number of objections were taken timeously on behalf of the complainer as to the admissibility of evidence led by the respondent. Said objections related to: (a) The production of photographs purporting to be the sheep and lambs referred to in charge (1). Said sheep and lambs were not productions in the case. It was argued that said photographs should not be admissible as evidence, upon the basis that “in the interest of justice and fair play the defence, whenever possible, should have the same opportunity as the prosecution to examine a material and possibly contentious production”. … (b) The admissibility of alleged statements made by the complainer both prior to detention and following upon detention on the basis that (i) the first alleged statement made to the police prior to detention should have been preceded by a caution as suspicion had by then crystallised upon the complainer, and (ii) that the detention was unlawful because there was no reasonable cause to suspect that the complainer was guilty of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v Crowe
...NILR 79; [1982] AC 476 R v Murphy [1965] NILR 138 R v SangELR [1980] AC 402 R v WatsonUNK (1980) 70 Cr App R 273 Runham v WestwaterSC 1995 JC 70 Saunders v United KingdomHRC (1997) 23 EHRR 313 Thompson v HM AdvocateSC 1968 JC 61 Tonge v HM AdvocateSC 1982 JC 130 Wade v RobertsonSC 1948 JC 1......