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.
[1] On 26 May 2000 at Alloa Sheriff Court the appellant was convicted, after trial, of charge 7 in an indictment, which was in the following terms:
"(7) between 1 January 1999 and 25 March 1999, both dates inclusive, at 25 Newmills, Tullibody, you were concerned in the supplying of a controlled drug, namely Diamorphine, a Class A drug specified in Part I of Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to another, in contravention of Section 4(1) of the aforementioned Act and in particular on two occasions between said dates you did at 25 Newmills, aforesaid and in the street known as Newmills, Tullibody supply Diamorphine to Brian Robert Ballantyne, c/o Central Scotland Police: CONTRARY to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Section 4(3)(b)."
[4] In the course of his charge the sheriff directed the jury to delete the passage in charge 7 from "in particular" to "c/o Central Scotland Police". The jury returned a verdict of guilty of the charge, which was recorded, without further comment, as a verdict of guilty of the charge as libelled and without the deletion which the sheriff had directed should be made.
[9] It was accepted by the sheriff in his report, and was not disputed before us, that the verdict of the jury erroneously failed to delete, as directed by the sheriff, the words "and in particular on two occasions between said dates you did at 25 Newmills, aforesaid and in the street known as Newmills, Tullibody supply Diamorphine to Brian Robert Ballantyne, c/o Central Scotland Police" in charge 7. In these circumstances, and for the reasons we have given, we shall allow the appeal, but only to the extent of deleting these words from the charge.
[12] In our opinion there can be no criticism of the sentence imposed in respect of charges 1, 2 and 5. Charges 1 and 2 both related to relatively sustained assaults on women in what should have been the security of their house. The assault on Margaret Cushingham in particular was a serious one, which resulted in several fractures. The appellant has previous convictions for assaults. The sentence imposed by the sheriff was by no means excessive. The appeal against sentence accordingly fails.
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.