[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons >> Connor v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2002] ScotHC 27 (13 March 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2002/27.html Cite as: [2002] ScotHC 27

[New search] [Help]

Connor v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2002] ScotHC 27 (13 March 2002)

APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Kingarth Lord Carloway	Appeal No: C488/00 OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LORD CAMERON OF LOCHBROOM in Application for Leave to Appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by NEIL PATRICK CONNOR Appellant; against HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE Respondent: _______

 

Appellant: N.R. MacKenzie; John Carroll & Co.

Respondent: Armstrong, Q.C., A.D.; Crown Agent

13 March 2002

1. Application for leave to appeal against the decision of the Appeal Court was presented on the ground that the appellant was entitled to a domestic remedy in terms of the devolution minute presented at his trial and had been denied the protection of the law.
2. The application proceeded on two grounds. The first was that there was an inherent defect in the opinion of this court in that it had proceeded upon a mistaken state of fact in relation to the police evidence given at the trial. As a result the court had misapprehended the submission for the appellant made in relation to the nature and purpose of the surveillance operation carried out by the police which gave rise to the search of the appellant's flat. It was said that this mistaken state of fact was apparent on the face of paragraph 7 on page 8 of the court's opinion. In putting forward this submission Mr Carroll, the solicitor advocate who appeared for the appellant, made reference to passages from the transcript of evidence given by one of the police officers, Constable Quigley, in cross-examination, while accepting that the transcript had neither been produced to the Appeal Court nor referred to in the course of the submissions before it for the appellant. We observe that the reasoning of the court appears in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the opinion. It is not at odds with the factual material which was put before it by counsel for the appellant or by the Crown. The attempt to introduce the transcript comes at far too late a stage. In any event, from what could be gleaned from the passages referred to, there appeared to be nothing said by the witness substantially different from the factual material given to the court in the submissions.
3. The second ground was to the effect that there was an important constitutional issue arising in relation to the acts of the Lord Advocate in founding upon such evidence at the trial and the remedy therefor. It is sufficient to say that the court was not addressed in any detail this matter as is stated in the court's opinion.
4. In the circumstances leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee was refused.