BARRY GLANCY+EILEEN MACDONALD v. PROCURATOR FISCAL, GLASGOW

Complainer MacDonald: S Collins, solicitor advocate; Capital Defence Lawyers, Edinburgh

[1] The two complainers have presented bills of advocation complaining about two decisions of the sheriff at Glasgow dated 7 February 2013. On that date each of the complainers was present at Glasgow Sheriff Court and was ready to proceed to trial. The procurator fiscal depute moved to adjourn the trial diet. This was opposed by the solicitors acting for each of the complainers. The sheriff adjourned the trial diet and fixed a new trial diet for 20 February. The complainers now challenge those decisions. The bills are opposed by the respondent.

[4] On 30 January 2013 the bill of advocation was heard and refused. The High Court held that the sheriff, faced with a difficult situation did all that he was obliged to do in the circumstances. Having regard to the circumstances it would have been contrary to the interests of justice to refuse the motion.

[5] When the case called on 7 February the Crown made a motion to adjourn owing to the non-availability of two Crown witnesses, Kevin Clark and Lynne Piper. It was explained to the court that that morning a telephone call had been received from Mr Clark intimating that both he and Miss Piper had contracted a virus and would be unable to attend court. The motion to adjourn was opposed but was granted and a new trial diet was fixed for 20 February.

[6] The present bills of advocation are brought to challenge the decision to adjourn the trial diet on 7 February 2013. A number of submissions were made to the sheriff at the time when he decided to adjourn. These related to the health of the two complainers. It is unnecessary to go into those because it is clear that the sheriff took these submissions into account.