-
did engage in a course of conduct which caused KMG, c/o The Police Service of Scotland, fear and alarm, (Scotland) Act 1995 is in the following terms: “(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence involving misconduct towards a person (‘the victim’) the prosecutor may apply to the court to make a non, harassment. An application may be made under subsection (1) if, but only if, a person is convicted, person has been convicted of “an offence involving misconduct towards ….the victim”. Equally
-
that in his notebook, the person named as Kyle McCrae was described as 5 feet 6 inches, skinny, had referred to the person named as Kyle McCrae as “baldy … in onesie”. He agreed, by the complainer to PC Laughlan about the physical appearance of the person named by the complainer, that the person named by the complainer as Kyle McCrae was one and the same person as the first appellant, to be a description of the person named as Kyle McCrae. It would have been apparent to the jury
-
) the provision by the person so appearing of any security industry services; (c) any matters in respect, Contracts Ltd did fail without reasonable excuse to produce to Christy Hopkins a person authorised, 19(2) and (5) of the 2001 Act are, so far as relevant, as follows: "(2) A person authorised in writing for the purposes by the Authority may require any person appearing to him to be a regulated person to produce to him any documents or other information relating to any matter connected
-
to Mtara as the person who put the drugs in the service hatch. It was accepted that there had been, ; and an individual named Stephen Harman who was detained outside 4 Merkland Road in possession of a dealer, of the square. Beside each entrance door was an unsecured service hatch giving access to inter alia, empty. On the landing outside his flat, in the service hatch beside the front door of number 60, officers also found a personal quantity of cocaine in the service hatch beside number 58 on the landing
-
with someone he knew.” At a further meeting in Barlinnie the appellant again asked for the services, from a person whose name I recognised as someone I had previously acted for. I immediately told him I, was a named individual, his brothers close friend was another named individual and a third named, advocate rather than by counsel, is not per se prejudicial to an accused person’s interests, issues regarding the representation of an accused person in a prosecution for murder. The primary
-
: Appellant: Renucci; Faculty Services Limited Respondent: Niven Smith, AD; Crown Agent 11 November, …. did assault Edward Rankin, Constable, The Police Service of Scotland then acting in the course, was likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm in that you did shout, swear and brandish a sword at Constables Rory Duncan and Ian Bailey of the Police Service of Scotland, officer named in charge 1, on the leg. Charge 1 related to that matter. The appellant’s position
-
selection as a juror and the sheriff’s directions [3] The petitioner was selected for jury service, 1993 SCCR 514, asked them about whether they knew the accused, anyone else named in the indictment or any person likely to be called as a witness in the case. The petitioner did not respond positively, of the sheriff clerk. On the first day of the trial, having been selected for jury service, the allegations in the indictment (paragraph 4). She did not contact any person on Facebook and had
-
service of the indictment a first diet was fixed for 10 January 2012 and trial was fixed for 23, . The appellant appears on five of them. The essence of each charge is that the accused named in it, and in charges 9 and 10 by Innes Financial Services, also referred to in the indictment as Innes, in the first person. To the embarrassment of the advocate depute, it became clear, and was confirmed, witnesses on the Crown list is meaningless. The Crown has had the opportunity at any time since the service
-
and accommodation in Scotland to persons from the Slovak and Czech republics. Companies named Real, January 2008 and 7 May 2010, using the company Real Opportunity Ltd and defrauding three named, 1 October 2009 and 17 January 2011, using the company GB Jobs Ltd and defrauding thirteen named, January 2010 and 17 June 2011, using the company AZ Team Work Ltd and defrauding five named complainers, an objection to the Crown leading evidence of those parts of B’s police interview in which B named
-
of, a person on 13 November 2010 at an address in Sykeside Street, whilst on bail from two orders, : "have a consultation in person with a solicitor in advance of an interview". The appellant was asked, , he had been asked if he wanted a consultation with a solicitor, either in person or by telephone, . The appellant explained the way in which he had robbed the "Dial‑a‑Drink" person of alcohol, been assisted by an accomplice but he declined to name that person as he was "no a grass". He