BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons >> Clark & Anor v. Procurator Fiscal [2011] ScotHC HCJAC_65 (01 July 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2011/2011HCJAC65.html
Cite as: 2011 SCL 809, 2011 SCCR 457, 2011 GWD 25-559, [2011] HCJAC 65, [2011] ScotHC HCJAC_65

[New search] [Help]


APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY

Lord Osborne

Lord Bonomy

Lord Marnoch

[2011] HCJAC 65

Appeal No: XJ835/10 & XJ836/10

OPINION OF LORD MARNOCH

in

STATED CASES

for

The Opinion of the High Court of Justiciary

IN APPEALS

by

THOMAS CLARK AND

ANDREW GLOVER

Appellants;

against

PROCURATOR FISCAL, DUMBARTON

Respondent:

_______

Appellant: P McBride, Q.C. et S McColl for Thomas Clark; C Shead for Andrew Glover

Respondent: A Di Rollo; Advocate Depute

1 July 2011


[37] In these two appeals - anxious as they are - the learned sheriff, in his Findings in Fact and a strongly worded Note, has made clear his view that "There was no threat to the public peace other than that resulting from the behaviour of the police" (Finding in Fact 16 in each case). In that connection, the sheriff has also made clear that he simply did not accept large parts of the evidence given by the two accused.


[38] All that said, the difficulty in which I find myself is that the undoubted disturbance which did take place had its root, on the sheriff's findings, in an argument between the complainer, James Carrie, and the accused, Glover, as to whether a remark by the former containing the word "fucking" and the words "sort ... out" was directed to those who had vandalised the complainer's property or, as Glover thought and reported to Clark, to himself. There is no suggestion that Glover did other than think (mistakenly it may be) that the remark was addressed to himself, and there is likewise no suggestion that
Clark took Glover's report at other than face value. In that situation, I find it difficult to agree with the sheriff that what he describes in Finding in Fact 11 in each case as a continuing argument "with the police repeatedly telling Carrie not to swear and Carrie and other witnesses pointing out he had done and was doing no such thing" constituted a disturbance entirely of the police's own making, - in the sense, at least, of instructing mens rea for assault on their part. In short, the continuing argument which culminated in the arrest of the two complainers, Carrie and McCallum, was one which, from the police perspective, had resulted from the complainer swearing at Glover and possibly linking that with a threat against him or others. This error or misunderstanding on their part cannot but have coloured their perception of all subsequent developments.


[39] It follows that, although it is clear from the sheriff's findings that the detailed accounts given by the two accused in the witness box were in large measure disbelieved, it is nonetheless impossible to determine from the sheriff's findings exactly where the truth must be taken to lie. The benefit of the resulting doubt must be given to the accused and on that short ground, albeit with some hesitation, I am for answering questions 1 and 6 in each case in the negative and would allow these appeals.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2011/2011HCJAC65.html