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.
Appellants: (1) Collins, Sol Adv; Capital Defence, Edinburgh (2); McElroy, Belmonte & Co, Edinburgh (3) Borthwick, Swinborne & Co, Glasgow (4) McQuillan, Sol Adv; Hughes Walker, Edinburgh (5) Allan, Sol Adv; BCKM, Edinburgh (6) Mackenzie; Beaumont & Co, Edinburgh
[1] At the outset of the hearing today, there were six appeals before the court but, as we explain below, two were withdrawn. This is our decision in relation to the remaining four appeals at the instance of Andrew Blance, Ryan Low, Charles Raynes and Leon Walker.
[2] In these cases it is alleged, in terms of charge (1) on the indictment that the appellants contravened section 1(1) of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012.
[4] The sheriff then heard debate on the issue. Certain concessions were intimated, as recorded by the sheriff at paragraph 15 of his report, which we do not propose to rehearse in detail. They were not incorporated into a joint minute.
[5] Before us today, it was submitted for the appellants that, whilst there was no challenge to the relevancy of charge (1), we should provide, in essence, an interpretation of sections 1 and 2 of the 2012 Act and that that interpretation ought to be to the effect that it was not enough to be on a journey from a regulated football match; the behaviour alleged also required to be in relation to the regulated football match.
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.