HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. KEITH WILSON & DARRELL MCCROSSAN

"to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require").

[3] On 11 March 2013 a debate on the devolution minutes took place before Sheriff K E C Mackie. On 14 March 2013 the sheriff issued a judgment in favour of the two respondents, and dismissed the indictment simpliciter insofar as directed against them, but not insofar as directed against the five co-accused.

The sheriff's ruling [5] Paragraphs [13] to [18] of the sheriff's judgment dated 14 March 2013 are in the following terms:

[14]. It was accepted in Buchanan that unfairness may result where for example agents were not prepared to act without remuneration and withdrew from acting leaving the accused without representation or where pleas in bar of trial and any consequent appeal were to be discouraged by any lack of provision for remuneration. In this case neither agent indicated an imminent intention to withdraw from acting further although Mr McCrossan's agent appeared to indicate that his position may be dependent on the outcome of this Minute. Minutes raising pleas in bar of trial have been lodged.

[16]. The circumstances in this case are, as averred in the Minute raising the plea in bar of trial, that the procedural history has been protracted. A number of indictments have been served upon the accused. At present two indictments are proceeding arising from the same incident. In this case there are four other accused and almost four times as many productions as in the other indictment. It is averred that no disclosure has been made in respect of this case other than that made in respect of the other indictment. A diet of trial is imminent in each case.