Legal system and methods cases Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Legal system and methods cases - Essay ExampleThe plaintiff in error raised 2 comes on appeal. The first issue was that the Advocate-depute included in their indictment Count 1, which was a count for chimerical imprisonment of one Tracy McGhee, and Count 2 was for distributing Amphetamines, in contravention of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Section 4(3)(b). The issue on appeal was that the Advocate-deputes did non lead some(prenominal) evidence at trial for either of these Counts, in that respectfore they should not have been included in the indictment. The appellant asked to separate these charges from the other charges, but this request was refused. Furthermore, the Advocate-depute did not attempt to rectify this by changing the indictment to omit these counts. The trial reckon acquitted the appellant on these two charges, and gave explicit instructions to the jury not to consider these two counts. However, when the trial judge gave his instructions to the jury, he asked th e jury to consider if including these counts in the indictment was fair or unfair. This is not the travel of the jury, rather, the judge is to make this assessment.The second issue on appeal was that a witness, Samuel Quigg, stated on the place upright that he was indicted for conspiracy to commit robbery in 1988, on with the appellant, Mr. Donnell. This prejudiced the appellant, as evidence of any prior convictions cannot be used against him. Although this was not a prior conviction that was brought up by the witness, it was an indictment, the circumstance was that he was being asked about his prior convictions, so the jury could probably assume that the witness was convicted along with appellant. This statement was volunteered by Mr. Quigg, not solicited by the Advocate-depute or the appellants solicitor, a fact that is significant.That there was evidence of a prior conviction before the jury was in contravention of Section hundred and one of Scotlands Criminal Procedure Act 1 995. The appellant asked