LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Chalmers, J. (2008)
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 34 Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals (Law Com No 267, 2001) leading to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, Part 10.
    • 35 Thirty-Sixth Annual Report 2001: A Year of Achievement (Law Com No 275, 2002) Part V.
    • 36 Professor Maher is scheduled to leave the Commission in August 2008 and at the time of writing there has been no advertisement for his replacement.
    • 12 As in Brian Venuti, High Court at Glasgow, September 2004 (convictions for murder and attempted murder by driving into a group of persons). See also Kelly v HM Advocate 2006 SCCR 9 (attempted murder).
    • 13 Road Traffic Act 1988 s 1, as amended.
    • 14 Government of the United States of America v Jennings [1983] 1 AC 624, at 629 per Lord Roskill, discussing s 8 of the Road Traffic Act 1956.
    • 15 Government of the United States of America v Jennings at 644 per Lord Roskill.
    • 16 G H Gordon, The Criminal Law of Scotland, 3rd edn, by M G A Christie, vol 2 (2001) para 26.09 n 44. The maximum penalty for the offence created in 1956 was five years' imprisonment: Road Traffic Act 1956 s 8(1).
    • 17 See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/05_10_07_purcell.pdf.
    • 18 As to whether the court could have raised the issue of relevancy ex proprio motu, see Cartwright v HM Advocate 2001 SLT 1163; Heywood v McLennan 1994 SCCR 1.
    • 19 See Purcell at para 2.
    • 20 Cf HM Advocate v Mowat 2001 SLT 738.
    • 21 As it plainly could have been: see Purcell at para 19. In theory, it might have been open to the court to refuse to entertain counsel's submission on the basis that it was in substance a preliminary plea in terms problems itself: see J Chalmers and F Leverick, Criminal Defences and Pleas in Bar of Trial (2006) paras 8.10-8.13.
    • 29 See e.g. McCall Smith and Sheldon, Scots Criminal Law (n 9) 178-180.
    • 30 The quote is from the Law Commission's consideration of this question in respect of English law: Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide (Law Com No 304, 2006) para 2.13.
    • 31 Under the Law Commission's proposals, this would be second degree murder: Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide para 1.36.
    • 32 See the unreported case of Patrick McCarron (1964), noted in Gordon, Criminal Law (n 16) para 23.17.
    • 33 See S Wortley, “Law reform after World's End” (2008) 12 EdinLR 293.
    • 1 2002 SLT 466.
    • 2 For example, Cinci v HM Advocate 2004 JC 103 and McKearney v HM Advocate 2004 JC 87.
    • 3 Under s 3(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965. The reference to the Commission was made in June 2004.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article