WILLIAM JOHN STEVEN WARD v. PROCURATOR FISCAL, HAMILTON

[1] The complainer in this bill of suspension seeks "reduction in a pretended conviction of 60 days imprisonment imposed" by the Sheriff at Hamilton on 12 January 2000. This matter concerns breach of a supervised release order. At the outset of the hearing of the appeal Mr. Shead, who appeared for the complainer, accepted that the competent and appropriate mode of appeal was by way of a petition to the nobile officium and not by way of a bill of suspension (see Pet. McGregor 1999 SCCR 225). We allowed the matter to proceed as though the proper mode of appeal had been adopted.

As is made clear in section 235(8), imprisonment includes detention since a supervised attendance order may be made where the offender is of or over 18 years of age and is not serving a sentence of imprisonment (see section 235(4)(b)).

[5] We would add that the Crown did not dispute that an order for imprisonment following upon breach of a supervised attendance order was a sentence as defined in section 307 of the 1995 Act.

"I imposed a period of imprisonment on the complainer in connection with his failure to comply with the supervised attendance order and not as a 'sentence passed on such conviction'."