William Lauchlan+charles O'neill V. Her Majesty's Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Justice Clerk,Lord Hodge,Lord McEwan |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] HCJAC 51 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Date | 19 April 2012 |
| Docket Number | XC424/10 |
| Published date | 19 April 2012 |
| APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY | |
| Lord Justice Clerk Lord Hodge Lord McEwan | [2012] HCJAC 51 Appeal No: XC424/10 XC435/10 XC402/10 XC406/10 OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LORD HODGE in APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION AND SENTENCE by (1) WILLIAM LAUCHLAN and (2) CHARLES O'NEILL Appellants; against HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE Respondent: _______ |
For 1st appellant: McVicar, Considine; Capital Defence
For 2nd appellant: Carroll, Ogg; Drummond Miller
For respondent: Bain, QC; Crown Agent
19 April 2012
[1] Mr Lauchlan and Mr O'Neill have applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of this court dated 8 February 2012 in an application under section 107(8) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 ("the 1995 Act"). In that decision this court gave leave to appeal on some grounds but held that certain grounds of appeal which they wished to advance were not arguable.
Undue delay
[2] Mr McVicar on behalf of Mr Lauchlan sought leave to argue before the Supreme Court that the decision of that court in Ambrose v Harris (2011 SLT 1005) had the result that the starting-point in the assessment of reasonable time under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR") was not, as the Appeal Court had held in O'Neill v HM Adv (2010 SCCR 357), the stage when an accused person appeared on petition but the earlier stage when the accused was interviewed by the police under caution in the exercise of their powers under section 14 of the 1995 Act. Mr Carroll on behalf of Mr O'Neill adopted Mr McVicar's submissions.
[3] We have decided to grant leave to appeal on this ground. We set out our reasoning in paragraphs [25] - [29] of this court's opinions but recognise that the issue raised is one which arises from statements in a decision of the Supreme Court on which that court may wish to provide further guidance.
Unauthorised surveillance
[4] Mr Carroll sought leave to appeal our decision (paragraphs [32] to [36] of the opinions) to refuse leave to appeal on ground 1 of Mr O'Neill's grounds of appeal which was concerned with the overhearing of legally privileged conversations through intrusive surveillance authorised under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000. In his oral submissions seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court Mr Carroll sought to introduce a new ground, namely that the police had misled the Surveillance Commissioner as to the content of Mr O'Neill's answers when he was interviewed by the police. This was not part of his grounds of appeal which we considered. It was not apparent from the documents which we had before us that there had been any material irregularity in the authorisation and such an irregularity could not be established without a factual investigation. So far as we were able to ascertain, the material obtained from the surveillance had no bearing on Mr O'Neill's trial....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Neill (Charles Bernard) v HM Advocate
...bias on the part of the trial judge arising out of things that had happened in the presence of the jury at the end of the first trial: [2012] HCJAC 51. The trial judge had been shown a list of the appellants' previous convictions after they had been found guilty of the sexual offence charge......
-
Notes Of Appeal Against Conviction And Sentence By William Hugh Lauchlan And Charles Bernard O'neill Against Her Majesty's Advocate
...many relating to the murder conviction. A hearing was held on 8 November 2011. The application was granted in part on 8 February 2012 ([2012] HCJAC 51) in respect of charge 10 but otherwise, in relation to the murder, refused. An appeal to United Kingdom Supreme Court, for which leave had b......
-
Petition Of Charles O'neill And William Lauchlan For Judicial Review Of The Prisons And Young Offenders Institutions Rules 2011, Rule 63(8), Etcetera And Answers For The Scottish Ministers
...2010); Lauchlan and O’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate [2012] HCJAC 20 (8 February 2012); Lauchlan and O’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate [2012] HCJAC 51 (19 April 2012); O’Neill and Lauchlan v Her Majesty’s Advocate [2013] UKSC 36]; Lauchlan and O’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJAC 62 (19 Ju......