HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. CRAIG COLLINS

[5] On 9 March 2012, the sheriff "upheld, in part, Crave (a)" of the devolution minute:

"only in so far as held that the requirement for the legal representative of the minuter to submit himself to biometric fingerprinting when visiting the minuter in custody at HMP Addiewell on 7 th September 2011 impede the delivery of practical and effective legal assistance to the minuter and was in the circumstances, a breach of the Minuter's rights under Article 6" ( sic ).

The sheriff refused that part of the crave relating to "dismissing" the indictment on the basis of a breach of Article 6. He confined his findings to the date of the visit and declined to hold that the respondent had been, or would be, denied a fair trial. As the sheriff observed, given the lapse of time since that date, "many steps might have been taken to ensure that [the respondent] was able to give adequate instructions for his defence".

[6] The case called for trial on 21 March, but that diet was adjourned until 10 April, with yet a further first diet being fixed for 3 April. Agent and client were again present on these diets. The trial had still not taken place by 25 April 2012, when the respondent was granted bail. A new trial diet has been set for July. Meantime, the appellant lodged this Bill of Advocation.

[8] The respondent contended that the Bill was academic if the trial was going to proceed in any event. However, it was argued that the sheriff's interlocutor should stand because it was "logically impeccable". The sheriff had pronounced a declarator that the actings of the prison authorities were unlawful. The prison authorities were no longer insisting upon the requirement in relation to the respondent's agent. But at the time of the debate before the sheriff, there had been a real issue with the respondent not having been able to consult with his agent in prison.