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.
Ground of appeal 1 - motion to adjourn [2] The first ground of appeal for the appellant is that the trial judge erred in failing to adjourn the trial diet for a period of two weeks to enable certain "prejudicial headings and straplines to be removed from internet links". The trial judge, it is said, "failed to balance the interests of the appellant in having all references removed, particularly as there had been two previous trials".
[6] The decision on whether it was appropriate to adjourn for a short period to allow further removal of material from the internet was a matter primarily for the judge at first instance to determine. There is no indication that, in exercising what was essentially a discretionary decision, the trial judge erred in any material way. Indeed, it is of some significance that in the Note of Appeal it is not suggested that the decision to allow the trial to proceed as scheduled resulted in any ultimate unfairness. The appeal on this ground accordingly fails.
[9] The deceased was stabbed to the heart; the wound having a total depth of approximately 18cms, consistent with the use of a knife with a blade of 17.8cms. There was another stab wound in the same area, penetrating to a depth of 7cms, and a third wound to the right arm.
[17] The court, accordingly, does not consider that there is any merit in this submission. As a subsidiary point, it was maintained that the trial judge ought to have given the jury a " cum nota warning" ( Docherty v HM Advocate 1987 JC 81) on the basis that Mr W was a socius criminis . It was accepted, however, that this was predicated on him being a socius criminus . Since the court does not consider that he was, this ground must also fail.
[18] The appellant maintained that there were no aggravating features to justify a departure from the guidelines set out in Boyle v HM Advocate 2010 JC 66 , whereby the punishment part, in relation to murders involving knives, should normally be in the region of 16 years. It was emphasised that this stabbing, as distinct from that in Boyle , had not been premeditated. The appellant had no previous solemn convictions, nor had he served any custodial sentence. He only had one conviction for violence in 2001, for which he had received a community disposal.
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.