Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
[2] On 4 July 2013, almost four years after his conviction and after the applicant had been released from prison on parole, he lodged this application for an extension of time in which to lodge a Note of Appeal. The Note raises issues concerning: the sufficiency of the directions of the trial judge in relation to mutual corroboration; a purported inconsistency between the jury's verdicts; and the compatibility of the verdicts with the need for a reasoned judgment in terms of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
[4] Leave to lodge a late Note of Appeal was refused by a single judge (Lord Eassie) for essentially two reasons. The first was that he did not consider that any "arguable" grounds of appeal had been stated. In particular, he reasoned as follows:
The second ground for refusal was the absence of any explanation as to why it had taken such a long time for a Note of Appeal to be presented. The judge noted that the material supporting the proposed grounds was available at the conclusion of the trial and had been considered as not giving rise to any arguable ground at that time.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.