Scotched Justice

“Individuals can resist injustice, but only a community can do justice”
 
HomePortalFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog inScottish Newspapers

Share | 
 

 Thomas Noble Thomson

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Admin
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 399
Location : Glasgow
Registration date : 2008-09-03

PostSubject: Thomas Noble Thomson   Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:22 pm

ate Referred to Court:
10 October 2006
Offence:
Rape
Date of Conviction:
10 August 1999
Appeal Outcome:
not yet determined
Date of Appeal Outcome:
not yet determined
Judgment:
not yet determined

SCOTTISH CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION
NEWS RELEASE
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred to the High Court the case of
Thomas Noble Thomson in respect of his Conviction. Mr Thomson was convicted at
Glasgow High Court on 10 August 1999 of Rape and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
Notes for Editors
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission was established as an independent body on
1 April 1999 to review alleged miscarriages of justice in Scottish convictions and/or
sentences. Under section 194 A to L of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (as
inserted by section 25 of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997) the Commission
can refer a case to the High Court if it believes that a miscarriage of justice may have
occurred and that it is in the interests of justice that a reference should be made. Once a case
is referred to the High Court by the Commission, it will proceed as a normal appeal.
The Commission operates with a Board of 7 Members, one of whom is the Chairman, a Chief
Executive, a Director of Administration, 2 Senior Legal Officers, 8 Legal Officers and
administrative support staff.
The Commission will disclose the fact that a case has been referred. However, as the
Commission operates under strict statutory non-disclosure provisions, it is not possible for
the Commission to disclose any further information about such cases. The Commission will
not release any information regarding cases in which no referral has been made or in respect
of cases under review.
For any further general information about the Commission please contact
Mr Chris Reddick, Director of Administration, SCCRC, 5th Floor Portland House,
17 Renfield Street, Glasgow, Tel: 0141 270 7030, e-mail: creddick@sccrc.org.uk or visit the
Commission’s website at www.sccrc.org.uk
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.torley.org
Admin
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 399
Location : Glasgow
Registration date : 2008-09-03

PostSubject: APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY   Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:23 pm

APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY

Lord Justice Clerk

Lord MacLean

Lord Macfadyen






[2005HCJAC7]

Appeal No: XC20/04

OPINION OF THE COURT

delivered by LORD MACFADYEN

in the reference by

THE SCOTTISH CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION

in the cases of

THOMAS NOBLE THOMSON,

Appellant;

against

HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE

Respondent:

_______





Appellant: Sudjic, Solicitor Advocate; McKennas Law Practice

Respondent: Mackay, A.D.; Crown Agent

20 January 2005

[1] The appellant was convicted on 10 August 1999 of raping the complainer in her home in Stirling on 18 May 1998. He was sentenced to four years imprisonment. He appealed against his conviction, but that appeal was refused (Thomson v H. M. Advocate 2001 SCCR 162).

[2] The appeal comes before us by virtue of a referral by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission under Part XA of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 ("the 1995 Act"). The Commission examined the case in careful detail, and concluded that there may have been a miscarriage of justice which in the interests of justice should be referred to this court. The Commission set out a number of reasons for making the referral, including matters of fresh evidence. Thereafter, a Note of Appeal was lodged on the appellant's behalf. When the case called for a procedural hearing on 30 November 2004, Mr Sudjic, who appeared for the appellant, intimated that he did not intend to advance the argument based on fresh evidence.

[3] When the appeal called for hearing, the only matters raised in argument related to the refusal by the Trial Judge of applications under section 275 of the 1975 Act for leave to lead certain evidence. The Trial Judge had refused leave in respect of two matters. The first concerned allegations made by the complainer to the effect that she had been the victim of sexual offences in 1991. The second related to evidence that on an occasion in 1995 the complainer had asserted that, when she was taken to a certain ward in a certain hospital "all the doctors raped her". The applications for leave were made on the basis that such evidence would tend to show that the complainer had previously made false allegations of sexual assault, and that that bore on the credibility of her evidence that the appellant had raped her. The Trial Judge refused the application in relation to the 1991 episodes on the view that there was no proper evidential basis for exploring those matters, which were in any event irrelevant. His Lordship refused the application relating to the 1995 "hospital" allegation on the basis that it failed the "interests of justice" test set by section 275, and that in any event the proposed evidence was irrelevant.

[4] Those issues were considered by the Appeal Court in the appellant's original appeal. The court upheld the reasoning of the Trial Judge on the 1991 matters (paragraph [11]). On the "hospital" question, the court held that Trial Judge properly exercised his discretion and applied the correct test, and that it could not be said that no judge, acting reasonably, could have refused the application (paragraph [16]).

[5] Before us, Mr Sudjic indicated that, while not abandoning the appeal, he was not inclined to advance the argument with any conviction. He said that he was adopting a "neutral position". The Advocate depute argued that the points had been correctly dealt with by the Trial Judge.

[6] We are unable to differ from the conclusions reached by the Appeal Court in 2001. It was not suggested to us that a court of five judges should be convened to reconsider the matter. The appeal is therefore refused.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.torley.org
 
Thomas Noble Thomson
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Thomas Michael Boettger Jr..........found dead
» List of Arrivals Thomas Cook
» Mark Williams Thomas
» Thomas Vikström
» Rob Thomas

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Scotched Justice :: Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. :: Not Yet Determined cases reffered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission-
Jump to: