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.
[1] The point which is at issue in this appeal involves the re-consideration of the decision in Morrison v. H.M. Advocate 1990 J.C. 299, and this court of nine judges has been convened for the purpose.
[3] At this point it is convenient to refer to the rules which were set out by the court in Morrison at pages 312-313:
[6] On the basis of these submissions Mr. Findlay invited the court to re-formulate Rule 2 in Morrison so as to remove the reference to lack of objection by the Crown, so that evidence as to the contents of a "mixed statement" could be led in evidence by the Crown or by the defence.
[7] In approaching these submissions, it is, in our view, important to bear in mind the reasons for the way in which evidence of the statements of accused persons has been treated.
[9] An admission by an accused against his interest has been treated as standing in a different position. Lord Havers observed in R. v. Sharp at page 11:
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.