Paul Macklin v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2013] HCJAC 41

Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court:- The applicant was convicted in September 2003. Here he sought leave to appeal to the United Kingdom Supreme Court.  The basis of the appeal was that the Lord Advocate had acted incompatibly with the applicant's rights under Article 6 of the Convention by failing to disclose material information regarding the identity of the gunman in the commission offence. It was contended that due to the failure to disclose certain material the applicant did not receive a fair trial and that there was a real possibility that, if disclosure had been made, then a different verdict may have been reached by the jury. Further criticisms were made of directions by the trial judge in relation to the dock identification of the applicant by two police officers. The court considered the test in McInnes v HMA 2010 SC (UKSC) 28 and Fraser v HMA 2011 SC (UKSC) 113, namely, if there had been disclosure, that there was a real possibility the jury would have reached a different verdict and the court had decided there was no such possibility, given the particular evidence in the case. In relation to the issue of dock identification the court had decided that it was not a breach of Article 6 for the Crown to have proceeded in the manner followed at the trial. The court here considered that leave to appeal to the United Kingdom Supreme Court should only be granted if the applicant is able to identify a potential error of law by the appeal court on a compatibility issue and the point is one of general public importance and here the court considered that the application did not raise any matter of general public importance and leave to appeal was refused.