Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons

Appellant:  Jackson QC, MacKenzie;  Beaumont & Co, Edinburgh

Respondent:  Edwards AD;  Crown Agent

16 September 2014

[1]        In our opinion, this case was a straightforward application of the guidance given by the Privy Council in Holland v Her Majesty’s Advocate 2005 1 SC (PC) 3.  The three primary safeguards referred to in that decision were very much in evidence in this case.  These were:  first, cross examination by defence counsel highlighting the alleged defects in the identification of the accused; secondly, detailed submissions on this issue in the defence speech to the jury;  and thirdly, careful directions from the trial sheriff which were not subjected to any criticism in the appeal.  There was nothing to demonstrate that, in the particular circumstances of this case, those protections were not sufficient for the purposes of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  We are not persuaded that there is an arguable case that there has been an error in law, or that any point of law of general public importance arises from this case.

[2]        In relation to the second ground, as the advocate depute rightly pointed out, no convertible compatibility issue arises for the reasons she gave.

[3]        In the result, the application for leave is refused.