Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons

IAN McNAUGHTON v. PROCURATOR FISCAL, PAISLEY [1999] ScotHC 42 (24th February, 1999)

This is a Bill of Advocation taken by Ian McNaughton, in respect of proceedings at the Sheriff Court in Paisley on 12 January 1999. After certain Crown evidence had been led, the Crown sought an adjournment and the Sheriff granted that adjournment. It was accepted in the presentation of the Bill, that the matter was one for the discretion of the Sheriff. The situation which had arisen is described by the Sheriff in his report in the following terms. After the evidence of two witnesses for the Crown, the Depute moved to adjourn the trial. From the line of cross-examination, it had become clear that neither of the two officers who had given evidence had direct knowledge that a camic machine in question was not working. Rather they had been advised of this by a colleague. The Depute indicated that the statements in his possession prior to trial did not make this clear and the evidential gap was not one which she could reasonably have foreseen. On behalf of the Advocator, the submission was that these were matters which should have been foreseen by the Crown. There had been inadequate preparation. There had been an intermediate diet at which the Crown had indicated that they were ready to proceed. The Crown were thus at fault, and weighing that matter, along with other aspects such as the summary nature of the proceedings and the prejudice to the accused, it could be said that the Sheriff had erred in weighing matters in his discretion.

We are not persuaded that that is the case. It was, no doubt, unfortunate and open to criticism that the point had not been discovered by the Crown, but it was accepted that fault on part of the Crown is not a bar to be granting of an adjournment. Reference was made to the case of Campbell v Munro 1997 SSCR 542 and also to the case of Tudhope v Laws quoted in that case. These lay down what the criteria should be. The Sheriff here narrates what the submissions for the two parties were and he says that he took the view that he had a discretion. He says that he had regard to the submissions by both parties. He says that he had regard to the serious nature of the charge and to the public interest. No doubt the decision might have gone the other way. But it was one for the Sheriff and we are not prepared to interfere with it. We are therefore not prepared to pass the Bill.