GARY JOHN BULLOCK v. HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE

The appellant is Gary John Bullock who was convicted at the Sheriff Court at Inverness on 29 January 1997 of three charges of theft by housebreaking, two charges of theft by breaking into other property and one charge of the theft of a motor vehicle. He was remitted to the High Court for sentence and on 11 March 1997 he was sentenced to five years imprisonment backdated to 14 August 1996. He has appealed against his conviction.

There appear to have been two aspects to the defence: the first was to the effect that the appellant had not stolen the items but had bought them in various markets, so that, to that extent, the appropriate verdict might have been that the appellant was guilty of reset; the second aspect was a contention that the police had not really discovered certain items in his car and that they had concocted a false case against him, apparently in revenge for him having stolen certain documents from the police on an earlier occasion.

There then followed further exchanges in which the Sheriff was in effect indicating that, since no solicitor could be expected to take over the case at this stage without consultation and instruction, the result would have to be that the diet would be deserted. This approach was supported by the procurator fiscal who thought that a solicitor could not put questions to the police officers without having dealt with the previous evidence. The Sheriff considered that desertion "would be a natural and probable consequence."

The Sheriff then asked the appellant if he wished him to arrange to have the duty solicitor present on the following Monday and in due course the appellant said that he should not refuse the offer. What then happened was that the cross-examination of Detective Inspector Prendergast was interrupted and two further civilian witnesses were led. At the conclusion of the proceedings for the day, the Sheriff returned once more to the matter of the duty solicitor:

On the Monday morning the duty solicitor was present and the Sheriff began by outlining the situation to him and allowing fifteen minutes for him to discuss the position with the appellant before proceedings began and the appellant resumed his cross-examination of Detective Inspector Prendergast.