http://www.blackchambers.co.uk/index.php/tools/blocks/page_list/rss?bID=229&cID=60&arHandle=Main Latest news from Black Chambers http://www.blackchambers.co.uk/index.php/news/talk-by-michael-meehan-on-the-use-of-prior-witness-statements/ Michael Meehan recently delivered a talk to teh Scottish Young Lawyers' Association on the use of prior witness statements. A PDF of his talk is available for download here..... Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:13:00 GMT http://www.blackchambers.co.uk/index.php/news/faculty-and-stables-feature-in-the-times-business-insight/ Faculty of Advocates and stables feature in peice in the times.... Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:35:00 BST http://www.blackchambers.co.uk/index.php/news/recent-appeal-court-decisions/ Recent Appeal Court Decisions.... Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:30:00 BST http://www.blackchambers.co.uk/index.php/news/guidance-on-prior-statements-and-hearsay-evidence/ .... Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:42:00 BST http://www.blackchambers.co.uk/index.php/news/admissibility-of-hearsay-evidence/ Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence HMA v Stewart & another This was a murder trial which concluded on Monday 3rd October in Glasgow. At an early point in the trial, the cross examination of the first Crown witness by Senior Counsel for the first accused, questions were asked which were designed to elicit evidence of hearsay from the deceased. No application under Section 259 had been lodged in advance of the trial. I took objection on the basis that without such an application the evidence was inadmissible. After argument on the first day the trial Judge, Lord Bracadale, continued the case overnight to allow the Crown to consider its position on the particular issue of whether or not Section 259 superseded the common law in relation to hearsay of a deceased. Surprisingly there appeared to be no decided law on the matter. The unreported case of HMA v Clancy referred to in Renton and Brown had never produced an opinion and the case of McKenna v HMA 2003 SCCR 399 had remarks, albeit obiter from Lord Caplan suggesting that the common law route was still open. On the second day the Crown indicated to the court that they agreed that Section 259 superseded the common law. After hearing further argument Lord Bracadale decided to bring in two consulting Judges to consider the matter with him. At 2pm that day with three Judges assembled the Crown decided that in fact they agreed with the first accused’s position that Section 259 did not supersede the common law! This volte face did not endear them to the Court who decided then to continue the case for two days to allow the Crown to fully consider their position and to allow all parties to consider the position particularly in relation to Statutory Interpretation. On Monday 19th September Lord Bracadale sat with Lords Doherty and Bannatyne and heard argument on the matter. The Crown maintained their position that the common law survived as did Senior Counsel for the first accused. Relying primarily on the Law Commission Report I argued that it was clear that the intention of the legislation was to create a legislative basis for the admission of hearsay evidence in relation to the circumstances set out within the relevant section. Having considered the matter the Court decided that Section 259 did supersede the common law in respect of hearsay of a deceased and accordingly, without such an application, the evidence was inadmissible. The court allowed an application to be made, although late, as a result of the uncertain state of the law and an application, on a very limited basis, was allowed. It would be surprising however if a Court in the future allowed such an application in those circumstances. It is apparently the intention of Lord Bracadale to issue an opinion on the matter. However the law now seems clear that whoever wishes to lead evidence of the hearsay of a deceased must lodge an application under Section 259. Brian McConnachie QC 24th October 2011 .... Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:21:00 BST http://www.blackchambers.co.uk/index.php/news/internet-searches-by-jurors/ Internet Searches by Jurors HMA v Blenkinsop & oths This was a significant drugs trial which finally concluded on 4th October 2011 with five accused being sentenced to lengthy sentences of imprisonment for importation of cocaine. The trial first took place in October/November 2011 over 42 days. Towards the end of the trial it transpired that a juror had searched the internet in relation to the client represented by Tony Lenehan and myself, Keith Blenkinsop. Unfortunately that search disclosed that he had been convicted in Spain of analogous offences and had been imprisoned there. As a result of that information coming to light a motion was made for desertion of the trial pro loco et tempore. The Crown opposed this motion but the trial Judge, Judge Murphy, deserted the trial after he personally had interviewed two of the jurors. The interest in this case is how the information came to light and what if anything can be done to prevent this occurring in the future. After the trial was almost at an end one accused (Harkins) was released from a sentence he had been serving and went out for a drink with one of his co-accused (Elvin). During that, Elvin informed him that about three or four weeks previously one of the female jurors had approached him on the bus and advised him that due to one juror informing the group about Blenkinsop’s previous conviction the jury were likely to find all accused guilty although she was not of that mind. For reasons which are not clear Elvin had not thought it appropriate to bring the matter to the attention of his defence team. However Harkins did and enquiries took place. These were hampered by the fact that the female juror had, in the intervening period, been discharged from the jury through illness. However she was eventually traced and confirmed Elvin’s story. Even after this the Crown were still opposing the desertion. Two jurors were identified as potentially being the one who had looked up Blenkinsop on the internet. After interviewing them the Judge took the view there was no option but to desert the trial. The juror who alerted Elvin was brought before the court for consideration to be given as to whether or not she was in contempt of court. Eventually no such finding was made. It is interesting to note that without her intervention, wrong or not, there was a significant chance that there would have been a miscarriage of justice which could never have been corrected. Had the jury proceeded to convict, wholly or partly, on the basis of the information obtained from the internet, the law, as it stands, would have prevented any enquiry being made, even if the female juror had come forward post trial. The other issue is what, if anything can be done by Counsel, or the courts, to prevent such things happening again. At the retrial I asked the trial Judge to direct the jury specifically on the matter with reference to the English case of R v Thompson 2010 EWCA Crim 1623 and to use basically the ideas set out in that case. He did give the jury some directions although did not go as far as Lord Judge suggests in Thompson. It will be a matter for individual judges and for the Counsel in the case but the unrestricted use of the internet is a major problem for us all. Lord Judge seems in Thompson, and in a lecture he delivered subsequently, to be of the view that very clear and direct instructions must be given warning a jury of the consequences of disobeying such a direction. The theory seems to be that by warning all of the jury in this way and directing them that they have a collective responsibility at least one jury member will alert the authorities should a member of the jury seek to introduce such information to the jury room. It may well be that in any case where there is the likelihood of an internet search being used, Counsel should request that the trial judge direct the jury along the lines of Thompson. I am thinking of cases where the client has a previous conviction which will show up in an internet search or perhaps a case with difficult expert evidence which a jury may seek to investigate themselves. Brian McConnachie QC 24th October 2011 .... Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:19:00 BST http://www.blackchambers.co.uk/index.php/news/david-young-qc-returns-to-private-practice/ David Young QC Returns To Private Practice.... Fri, 11 Feb 2011 10:31:00 GMT http://www.blackchambers.co.uk/index.php/news/the-decision-in-cadder-the-immediate-implications/ The decision in Cadder: the immediate implications.... Mon, 13 Dec 2010 12:12:00 GMT http://www.blackchambers.co.uk/index.php/news/double-jeopardy/ Brian McConnachie comments on SLC's report on double jeopardy.... Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:09:00 GMT http://www.blackchambers.co.uk/index.php/news/sentencing-guidelines/ Brian McConnachie comments on the court's recent approach to minimum punishment parts.... Tue, 08 Dec 2009 09:55:00 GMT http://www.blackchambers.co.uk/index.php/news/salduz-test-case-decision/ The seven judge Bench convened to consider the reference under the Scotland Act made by the Sheriff at Forfar in the case of HMA v McLean has rejected the submission made by counsel for the accused Chris Shead of Black Chambers. If the main arguments advanced had been accepted it might have opened the way to challenging convictions in hundreds of cases..... Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:09:00 GMT http://www.blackchambers.co.uk/index.php/news/this-is-another-news-article/ Advocate Lorenzo Alonzi and sons Riccardo and Gianluca arrived to an unforgettable welcome in their ancestral village home in Italy after a cycle marathon of nearly 3,000 kilometres from Edinburgh..... Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:49:00 BST http://www.blackchambers.co.uk/index.php/news/new-news-article/ Frances McMenamin QC has received an honorary degree from the University of Strathclyde..... Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:44:00 BST