The procurator fiscal at Edinburgh has reclaimed the authority to prosecute a man charged with stalking after an appeal court overturned the original sheriff’s decision to permanently abandon the case. The Sheriff Appeal Court ruled that the decision to desert the matter “simpliciter” was made without a proper evidentiary basis.
A Case Stuck in Procedural Delays
The respondent faced trial at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on charges under section 39 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. The proceedings faced repeated obstruction due to logistical issues. The first trial diet failed because a defense solicitor was unavailable. The second was delayed due to childcare problems for the complainant. The third failed because the Crown failed to cite witnesses. A fourth diet was scheduled for March 25, 2026.
Related: AI Era Tests Human Judgement
At this session, two witnesses were prevented from attending due to illness and a college exam. The complainant also faced childcare difficulties that threatened to cut her testimony short before noon. At that point, the procurator fiscal depute moved that the trial be part-heard, meaning only part of the case would be heard immediately. However, the respondent was successful in opposing that motion. A further request for an adjournment was likewise refused. The Crown then moved to desert the case “pro loco et tempore,” or temporarily, without prejudice to the possibility of a new prosecution. This motion was also rejected. Instead, the sheriff decided to desert the matter “simpliciter,” or permanently.
Applying the Standard for Unfairness
The Crown challenged this decision by bringing a bill of advocation before the Sheriff Appeal Court. They argued that even if the complainant could not finish her evidence due to childcare, most of the testimony could still be heard. Citing legal precedent from Renton & Brown, the prosecution asserted that the original sheriff had no material to justify finding the trial would be “inevitably unfair.”
The respondent defended the sheriff’s decision. They noted that several Crown witnesses had displayed unsatisfactory behavior by failing to be ready and available to give evidence at multiple diets. They also pointed out that the respondent had been “hanging over” by the case for nearly 18 months and was considered a vulnerable witness. They argued that no reasonable sheriff could have reached a different conclusion given the length of time involved.
Related: Facing Drug Possession or Distribution Charges in Colorado? Here’s How Penalties Are Determined
Temporary Sheriff Principal Brian Mohan concluded that the factors cited by the original sheriff were insufficient to establish inevitable unfairness. He noted that hours of court time remained available.
The judge observed that the original sheriff had no clear basis to conclude that evidence quality would suffer from the passage of time. He wrote that it is not clear on what basis the sheriff formed the latter view, nor, apart from the strain that a further delay in the resolution of proceedings would cause, why it would be unfair to the respondent to allow the matter to proceed.