Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
30 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Henderson v Patrick Thomson |
requirment to submit a precognition. Civil case woman bringing action saying that she had been defamed in a shop she went into the shop and was accused as having stolen a purse. Before the action she requested from the court an order making the defenders disclose the name and address of their employees who were in the shop at the relevant time to allow her lawyer stop recognise these employees. It was held that the court could not make such an order. Be suggested that refusal of a witness could be commented on during the course of the proof itself. |
|
|
*HM Advocate v Monson |
The judge said that every good citizen should give his aid to the crown of defence in every case where the interests of the public call for ascertainment of the facts. The trouble is that in criminal the cases involve not good citizens. This is a mere civic duty is not enough. The criminal there has been more forceful ways.. |
|
|
Low v McNeill |
charged with theft the crown supplied to lawyers a list of potential crown witnesses but he had difficult try to get them in touch for a precognition. One of the witnesses was regarded as a crucial witness. And the defence according sought an order for that person to appear before the sheriff to be recognised on oath. It was held that the order would not be made. It was held that.. Precognition on oath would require unusual or exceptional circumstances. |
|
|
Brady v Lockhart |
Man charged with assault. There were two eyewitnesses to the event both of whom refused to attend the defense lawyers to give a precognition even though the crown raised no object to those witnesses doing so. Absolute privilege.. |
|
|
Watson v McEwan |
Privilege is ambiguous because it has two meanings, firstly it cannot be used as evidence and this prologue in the sense of the law of delict in that what is said in a recognition cannot be the basis for a later claim of defamation or slander. |
|
|
*Kerr v HM Advocate |
The number of men found in possession of stolen copper. The men were employed by construction company. The men were arrested and charged police officer went to the firm and questioned a partner and questioned the partner about the theft. The partner was called a sa witness for the defence he gave evidence which was inconsistent the statement made to the police. It was held that the statement to the police officer should NOT have been admitted as evidence because it is a precognition and was made not during initial investigation. |
|
|
Clarke v Edinburgh and District Tramways |
woman injured on the tram, the accident occurred through the fault of either the conductor or the driver. She requested the court to make an order from the tram company to supply the names of the driver and conductor. They are not external witnesses. It was HELD that the order had to be granted. |
|
|
Halloran v Greater Glasgow PTE |
Worker was struck on the subway, he said that he accident occurred through the fault of two of their employees the driver and the lookout man for the train. He wanted to know their names, The court held that he was fully entitled to be given that information. |
|
|
Moffat v News Group Newspapers |
Actions brought by man and woman against newspaper claiming that articles suggested that the man and woman were having an adulterous relationship. The newspaper stated that this allegation was true. They refused to name their sources. The pursuer sought an order for disclosure of these sources. But in the facts the court refused to make such an order. For several reasons whether the man and woman were having an affair it is them they are in the position that they were not they did not need external evidence to prove the allegation was false. The court wanted to protect newspaper sources where it is not necessary for the other party to now the sources. |
|
|
Sinclair v HM Advocate |
court pointed out that the crown exist approach at that time was nt holly complaint with the ECHR. The crown's duty was proactive and did not require a request for information. The law was rewritten in the 2010 Act. |
|
|
R v Kemble |
Muslim woman took the oath of the bible. On appeal it was argued that this was inappropriate. It was held that taking to oath was essentially about the truth. Any objects should have been made by the witness before the oath was taken. |
|
|
Meehan v HM Advocate |
Campaigned that he was innocent and should be released, truth drug was to be administered and wanted what was said to be given as evidence in appeal. It was held that this was utterly incompetent and that evidence from a witness must be based on the oath and giving evidence in court. |
|
|
Affleck v HM Advocate |
A woman was called to give purely formal evidence in murder case and was the mother of the deceased. She did not need to give evidence was agreed so she sat in the trail from the start and no one objected. During the trial he approached the avd dupute and informed him that she herself had a conversation with the accused sometime after the alleged incident. The crown wished to bring her in as a witness. The court HELD that when she sat in court she was not regarded as a witness, when it was realised she would be a witness the test under statute was the presence a result of negligence or criminal intent. This test should still be met and it was held that she was competent to give evidence. |
|
|
Macdonald v Mackenzie |
Criminal trial, discovered that witness called to give evidence for the accused had been in court earlier and the crown did not object. The judge himself raised the issue because there is still the statutory test that should be applied. |
|
|
Gerard v R W Sives Ltd |
Civil case, The defender company was ordered out of court. It was held this was procedure because if the man was later to give evidence his presence in court would give raise to the object before the trail. At the start he was excluded from the court although he was the managing director of the defending company. |
|
|
McKenzie v McKenzie |
Reading extracts to precognitions to which the witness said they agreed or disagreed the court held that the evidence was pointless because it is not coming from the witness it is essentially coming from the council. |
|
|
*McLeod v HM Advocate |
Sexual assault charge, one of the key crown witnesses was evidence was essential to establish cooperation gave evidence which contradicted itself the appeal court held that this could because it's up to the jury to decide what they elusive they could chose to disbelief everything. |
|
|
Niven v Hart |
Charge of assault to the alleged victim, police during course of evidence consulted notes he made at the time the accused asked to see the notes and was refused by the trial judge and on appeal this was held to be wrong. If the witness incorporates the notes in evidence it can be seen by the other side. |
|
|
Hinshelwood v Auld |
The police officer stated that notes had been made in investigation to allow them to report to the superior officer these were not incorporated to evidence and could not therefore be seen by the accused. |
|
|
Daly v Vanette |
Police officer gave evidence, referred to notes on the matter of what the accused said send, the defence wanted to see the notebook which was allowed.but not the previous notes in the notebook. |
|
|
Bryce v British Railways Board |
Held that the judge in this case could consider evidence from a medical witness for the defendant despite the fact that that line of defence had not been put in cross examination at an early state to a medical witness for the pursuer. |
|
|
Keenan v Scottish Wholesale Co-operative Society |
Case of personal injury damaged caused to a child knocked down by car. The pursuer's case was that at the time of the accident the driver had turned to talk to a passenger in seat beside him which caused the accident. The pursuer had witnesses who spoke to the truth of this account. However the defence had witnessed that contracted this evidence and that the driver was alone in the front seat. The pursuer did not cross examine the defenders witnesses. It was held that being failing to cross examining to pursuer accepted what the defenders witnesses had said. |
|
|
Harrington v Milk Marketing Board |
claim for damages for personal injuries. The fact wa staht a lorry which had or experienced a battery failure parked in the middle of road. The car behind crashed into the lorry. The key issue was whether the driver could have parked somewhere else. Although The driver gave evidence that he was no cross examined on this point and it was held that the judge could noonelessinfer that the driver could have parked somewhere else. |
|
|
Walker v McGruther & Marshall |
Another fatal injury case, who was driving the lorry at the time? Was it the deceased or a fellow employee. When the employee gave evidence he was subject to general cross examination to show he was unreliable. He claimed that it was the deceased that driven the lorry this particular point was not put to cross em examination that he was lying it was held that the court could infer the fellow employee was lying and he was driving. |
|
|
Wilson v Brown |
Two crown witnesses gave evidence but failed to identify the relevant person as the accused. Cross examination was not present. The court held that identify the accused is the essential part of the crown case and the failure was not made good by the failure of the accused to cross examine the witnesses. |
|
|
Chalmers v Griffiths |
Trail for a lay magistrate the magistrate sought advice from lawyer, about the effect that the accused when gave evidence was not cross examined by the procurator fiscal. The advice was that this failure of the crown to cross examine had NO effect in itself but that it could be taken into account in the assessment of the accused credibility and reliability. |
|
|
Gibson v BICC |
The examination the witness made a damaging admission to the pursuer's case. The witness was NOT reexamined for the pursuer and it was held that the court was entitled to take that fact into account for assessing the witnesses credibility |
|
|
Thomson v HM Advocate |
crown witness failed in evidence to identify the accused as having taken part in an assault. The trial judge took the view that the witness was previcated as to say not getting round to answering the question. And the witness was asked to be detained. The crown sought permission from the witness to be recalled. The court held that the trial judge had correctly allowed the witness to be recalled. |
|
|
Rollo v Wilson |
whether the accused had been identified in court, There had been two crown witnesses and it was argued that only one had directly identified the accused. The crown case was that a second officer hand nodded towards the accused when giving evidence that he had seen the offender committing the crime the judge recalled the officer in question who confirming the nodding he meant to identify the accused. |
|
|
Brown v Smith |
He made an allegation that he was assaulted by police officier in giving his evidence his own lawyer said that he was making nothing of this it was simply irrelevant to the charge before the court but the judge said He wanted to find out more and the police officer in question were recalled and croseexaminid. It was HELD that this procedure wa smproboper, because the recall was NOT cleaning up an ambiguity in respect fro the charge of theft. |
