Gary Follen v Her Majesty’s Advocate: PC 8 Mar 2001

PC High Court of Justiciary (Scotland) The defendant said that a trial under the section infringed his right to a fair trial, because of a ten month delay by the prosecutor. On arrest he had been recalled to serve the remainer of a sentence, and served longer than the 110 day maximum before his case came to trial.
Held: Upon re-arrest he was serving the time under earlier sentence. The defendant had raised the devolution issue only at this stage. The Committee had itself no original jurisdiction to hear such a complaint. Following Montgomery, it had to be heard first in the High Court of Justiciary. In this case, the court refusing leave to appeal would have avoided much difficulty by giving reasons for its refusal.
Where the Appeal Court refused leave without giving reasons, the Board might find it difficult to appreciate that a petition for special leave to appeal was without merit from the information given on paper by the petitioner.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Millett
DP No. 1 of 2000, [2001] UKPC D2
PC, PC, Bailii
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 4(3)(b)
Citing:
AppliedWallace v H M Advocate 1959
The running of the 110 day maximum period for detention after which a trial must have begun, was interrupted when the accused began to serve a sentence of imprisonment on another matter. He was no longer being detained because of the committal . .
CitedMontgomery and Coulter v Her Majesty’s Advocate PC 19-Oct-2000
The test of whether a defendant’s common law right to a fair trial had been damaged by pre-trial publicity was similar to the test under the Convention, and also where there was any plea of oppression. The substantial difference is that no balancing . .
CitedRe X, Petitioner 1995
. .
CitedJ T A K v H M Advocate 1991
. .

Cited by:
CitedKinloch v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 19-Dec-2012
The appellant said that the police officers had acted unlawfully when collecting the evidence used against him, in that the information used to support the request for permission to undertake clandestine surveillance had been insufficiently . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.179259