Stewart Robertson & Stephen Gough v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2007] HCJAC 63

Criminal - Petition and Bill of Suspension:- On 10 April 2001 the petitioner was called as a Crown witness at Paisley sheriff court in a trial on indictment. During the course of his evidence he was repeatedly warned regarding his failure to answer the questions put to him by the procurator fiscal depute and the procurator fiscal depute and the sheriff warned him several times about prevarication. The sheriff told him that he was considering making a finding of contempt. Thereafter a solicitor addressed the sheriff on behalf of the petitioner and the solicitor did not deny that the petitioner had prevaricated and described a background of intimidation by way of explaining the petitioner's conduct. The sheriff then made a formal finding of contempt. Here the petitioner averred that his right to a fair hearing under article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached. In relation to the Bill of Suspension, the complainer has become notorious for persistently being naked in public. On four separate occasions between 15 November 2005 and 1 March 2006 the complainer was found in contempt at Edinburgh Sheriff Court for refusing to wear clothing in court. Four Billls were presented and in each it was averred that to appear in court undressed does not amount to a contempt of court. In this five bench decision the court considered inter alia (1) what amounts to contempt of court and (2) should the sheriff have dealt with the matter ex proprio motu in each of these cases? It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner and complainer that the question of contempt should have been remitted to another sheriff. The question whether Article 6 affords an accused person in Scotland any more protection than they are afforded at common law was also discussed.