N.D.M.C. v. HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE

[1] In October 2011 the applicant was indicted to a first diet at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on 1 November 2011, with a trial diet on 14 November, on a charge of assaulting SB on 12 May 2011 at Lulu's in George Street, by striking her on the face with a glass to her severe injury. Disclosure of Crown statements was made in June, but certain CCTV images, which were mentioned in the statements, were not made available.

[2] On 7 November 2011 the applicant presented a petition to the sheriff in terms of section 290 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, requesting the Crown to hold an identification parade. There was no basis for such a parade set out in the petition, other than a general statement that it was to test the reliability of unspecified Crown witnesses.

[3] On 8 November the sheriff refused the application. At that stage the procurator fiscal depute advised the court that there were four witnesses who, it was said, could all identify the applicant. The sheriff refused the application on the sole basis that it was not reasonable to hold a parade when the trial diet was only a week away. In that regard, there was no apparent reason why a petition could not have been presented at any time after the issue of identification had become apparent, at the time of disclosure almost six months earlier.

[4] On 21 November 2011, the trial diet was postponed on defence motion to 19 March 2012 and on 6 March it was postponed again until 25 June. However, at no point during these months was there a further application to hold a parade on the basis that there had been a change of circumstances, ie that the trial diet was no longer proximate.

[6] On 2 May 2012, the Bill called before this court. The Minute of the decision to refuse to pass the Bill reads as follows: