Lord Adam —Two preliminary objections are urged in this case against the conviction which the complainer seeks to set aside. The first is that he was brought before the Court without a warrant, there being no signed warrant in existence when the first diet of his trial was called. It appears that the complaint charging the crime of malicious mischief was signed by the fiscal; a warrant for the apprehension of the accused was then made out in the usual terms, but was not signed. The accused was afterwards met by a policeman, who told him that a warrant for his arrest had been issued, and that he was required to appear in Court on a specified date. The complainer accordingly appeared on 14th January, and pleaded not guilty. On the same date the diet was adjourned until the 29th of January by an interlocutor signed by the Sheriff. On the 29th the diet was adjourned till the 12th of February by an interlocutor which was not signed. On 12th February the trial proceeded, and the complainer was convicted of the crime charged. His second objection to this conviction is that, there being no signed interlocutor adjourning the diet to 12th February, the proceedings on that date were incompetent and without warrant, and must therefore be set aside. It is argued that the case must be treated as if there had been no interlocutor, and that consequently the proceedings came to an end on the 29th January. It seems to me that this objection is well founded, and that consequently it is unnecessary for us to pronounce any opinion as to the merits of the first objection urged by the complainer. Ever since the case of Fraser , 1 Irvine 1, it has been settled that diets in criminal cases must be made peremptory, that is, must be fixed for days certain. In the case referred to, this rule was laid down as regards a common law charge in the High Court, but there is no reason why the same rule should not apply in all cases truly criminal whether the proceedings are summary or not, or whether in the Sheriff Court or in the High Court. The charge in this case is one of malicious mischief, and that is a criminal charge. The rule, therefore, applies that every adjournment of the diet must be to a day fixed. If there is no adjournment, or if the adjournment is not to a day fixed, the whole proceedings come to a close. It was perfectly competent for the Court, assuming there was a warrant, or that the want of a warrant duly signed was got over, to go on with the trial on the 29th of January. But this was not done, and there being no adjournment of the diet the proceedings came to an end. If, therefore, we treat the unsigned interlocutor of 29th January, as we are clearly bound to treat it, as no interlocutor, the proceedings on the 12th February were clearly incompetent. The conviction must therefore be quashed.
Lord M'Laren —There are two ways in which a defender may be made amenable to the jurisdiction of a criminal court. He may either be cited to appear by a warrant of citation, or he may be brought up under a warrant for his apprehension. It is equally true that no man can be brought before any civil court except either under a warrant issued in the name of the sovereign by the signet being affixed to the summons, or under a warrant of citation signed by the judge. The first objection to the proceedings is founded on the fact that the defender was not brought into Court on a warrant. The argument submitted to us is that the first objection, which is founded on the absence of a signed warrant, was waived by the accused pleading to the complaint. The second objection is that the case was continued from one diet to another by an interlocutor which was not signed. It is admitted that this was the case, and it thus appears that on the first of these diets the Court adjourned the diet without appointing another date, because, if an interlocutor is unsigned, it is equivalent to no interlocutor. Now, it is also a fundamental principle of the administration of criminal justice that an accused person is not bound to submit to indefinite delay. If the case cannot be finished upon the day appointed, it must be put off to a definite date.
As regards the first of the objections now urged, I hold a strong opinion, which it is not, however, necessary to express, since I agree with your Lordship that the second objection is sufficient for the decision of the case. It is impossible to sustain a conviction pronounced upon a day subsequent to that originally fixed, and to which the original diet has not been adjourned, and on this ground I am of opinion that the conviction now under review should be set aside. Although in the particular case the error may have resulted in no tangible injustice to the accused, it is of essential
Page: 611 ↓
Lord Kinnear concurred.
The Court suspended the conviction with expenses.
Counsel for the Complainer— Orr. Agents — George Inglis & Orr, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Respondent— Constable. Agent— N. Briggs Constable, W.S.