Guo Xin Wang V. The Lord Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Justice General,Lord Emslie,Lord Osborne |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] HCJAC 114 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Date | 07 October 2011 |
| Published date | 18 November 2011 |
| Docket Number | XC137/11 |
| Year | 2011 |
| APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY | |
| Lord Justice General Lord Emslie Lord Osborne | [2011] HCJAC 114 Appeal No: XC137/11 OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by THE LORD JUSTICE GENERAL in NOTE OF APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION by GUO XIN WANG Appellant; against THE LORD ADVOCATE Respondent: (Section 110(4) Application) _______ |
Appellant: Shead; Drummond Miller, Edinburgh
Respondent: Bowie, Q.C., A.D.; Crown Agent
7 October 2011
[1] The appellant was on 25 January 2011 convicted after trial in the sheriff court at Dunfermline of being concerned in the supplying of cannabis at a rural location in the vicinity of Kincardine. He sought and obtained leave to appeal on the single ground that there was insufficient evidence in law to allow of such conviction. Intimation that leave had been granted was made on 12 July. On 24 August the appellant lodged a document detailing two proposed additional grounds of appeal, both criticising the directions given by the sheriff to the jury. His application to amend the grounds of appeal by adding these grounds was heard by a bench of three judges on 2 September. The court refused the application to amend holding that no cause had been shown to excuse the late tendering of the proposed additional grounds.
[2] When the substantive hearing of the appeal, together with that of a co-appellant who had lodged a similar single ground of appeal, opened this morning Mr Shead for the present appellant invited the court to allow these grounds now to be advanced. Apart from an additional aspect which is of no materiality, the basis upon which this application was made - that new counsel had been instructed and had taken a fresh view of the case - was the same as that upon which the application to amend had been made and refused on 2 September.
[3] We refused the application, stating that our reasons would be issued in due course. They are these.
[4] Section 110(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 provides:
"Except by leave of the High Court on cause shown, it shall not be competent for an appellant to found any aspect of his appeal on a ground not contained in the note of appeal."
The subsection does not limit the time at which such leave might be sought and granted. In an appropriate case it might be granted in the course of the substantive hearing of the appeal - for example, where some ground emerged in the course of the hearing which had not been, or could not have been, anticipated by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- McMillan (David Baillie) v HM Advocate
-
RBA v HM Advocate
...v HM Advocate 1995 JC 142; 1996 SLT 49; 1995 SCCR 504 TN v HM Advocate [2018] HCJAC 20; 2018 SCCR 109; 2018 GWD 8–99 Wang v HM Advocate [2011] HCJAC 114 Williamson v Wither 1981 SCCR 214 Textbooks etc referred to: Dickson, WG, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence in Scotland (3rd Grierson ed, ......
-
Pf Selkirk Against A Decision Of The Sheriff In The Case Of L M
...legitimate view of the evidence, taken at its highest, could it be open to a reasonable jury, properly directed, to convict: Wang v HMA 2011 HCJAC 114. [5] The sheriff had based his decision on the inferences which he considered should have been drawn and so had decided that the mens rea fo......
-
Matheson v McCall
...SAC (Crim) 2; 2019 SLT (Sh Ct) 109; 2019 GWD 13-194 S v Authority Reporter 2012 SLT (Sh Ct) 89; 2012 GWD 17-349 Wang v Lord Advocate [2011] HCJAC 114 Williamson v Withers 1981 SCCR 214 Justiciary — Crime — Assault — Teacher forcefully or roughly handling children with additional support nee......