Appellant: Taylor, Solicitor Advocate; Gilfedder McInnes, Edinburgh

Respondent: Wade, AD; Crown Agent

13 November 2012

[1] The agents for the appellant sought disclosure of certain items in preparation for the trial, including witness statements, the SARF form, any CCTV recordings available, any forensic evidence, any DNA and fingerprint analysis and any recordings of interviews with the appellant.

[2] Certain difficulties were experienced in the disclosure of these items. For example, statements were difficult to download from the website. CCTV evidence had to be located and then subsequently processed. Because of these difficulties and the Crown's efforts to give and disclose the appropriate items, the case was continued to a continued intermediate diet on 15 October 2012.

[3] At that continued intermediate diet on 15 October, some progress had been made. For example, the Crown were able to advise that they were not relying upon DNA or fingerprint evidence. A further five statements had been successfully downloaded. Sites of CCTV recordings had been identified, but there were still some items outstanding which the defence wished to have, such as three remaining statements which had to be downloaded. There were also the CCTV recordings, and while three sites had been identified, (Perth Road, Frankie & Bennies and Cineworld) the various footages had to be collected by the police and thereafter processed in such a way as to be available on a disc for the defence agents. These matters took a little time.

[4] Thus Crown efforts to give full disclosure continued. The CCTV recordings were eventually processed and available for uplift on Friday 9 November 2012.

[5] It seems to us, from all the information put before us, that the Crown were indeed endeavouring to make full disclosure. There were enquiries that had to be made, items collected and some technical difficulties experienced for which it is not necessary to attribute any blame.

[6] The sheriff, when he was dealing with the Crown motion for an extension of the 40-day period referred to in section 147(1), had to bear all these matters in mind. He also had to take into account the appellant's record, and the fact that the appellant was on two bail orders at the time of the alleged offence. He narrates these matters in his report, and while he did not use the phrase "cause has been shown", his whole report is focused on explaining what had been happening and why there had been an inability to proceed to trial.

[7] In the result, therefore, we are of the view that cause has been shown in terms of section 147 and that the sheriff was entitled to exercise his discretion as he did by granting the Crown motion. This appeal is refused.

jaw