Ross v HM Advocate

Scots law
Part of a series on

Administration Justice and Communities Directorate of the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Justice Judicial Appointments Board Judicial Complaints Reviewer Parole Board for Scotland Legal Aid Board Courts & Tribunals Service College of Justice Office of the Public Guardian Scottish Sentencing Council Law Commission Criminal Cases Review Commission Prison Service
Civil courts Court of Session Lord President Lord Justice Clerk Lord of Session Office of the Accountant of Court Acts of Sederunt Sheriff Court Sheriff Appeal Court Sheriff Principal Sheriff Personal Injury Court Sheriff
Criminal courts High Court of Justiciary Lord Justice-General Lord Justice Clerk Lords Commissioner of Justiciary Acts of Adjournal Sheriff courts Sheriff Appeal Court Sheriff Principal Sheriffs Justice of the peace courts Justices of the peace
Special courts Court of the Lord Lyon Lord Lyon King of Arms Children's Reporter Administration Children's Hearings Land Court Lands Tribunal
Criminal prosecution Lord Advocate Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service Advocate Depute Procurator fiscal Fiscal fine Precognition
Legal profession Judiciary Faculty of Advocates Advocate Law Society Solicitor-Advocate Solicitor Association of Commercial Attorneys

HM Advocate v Ross was a 1991 Scots criminal law case decided by the High Court of Justiciary.^[1] The defendant had been charged with violently attacking others in a public house, but was allowed to go free on the premise that he was in a state of non-self-induced automatism. Others in the bar had slipped LSD and other drugs into his beer without him knowing, and there was only a small amount of alcohol he had been drinking so he was not responsible for his intoxication which led to the violent actions.

This case set a key precedent in Scots law for automatism, namely that since this case, if someone has been under the effect of drugs that they themselves did not voluntarily know they were taking or were under the influence of and commit a violent act, it may be a defence for them in court if they can prove or give evidence that their intoxication was not self-induced.

Later cases suggested that the Scottish precedent established in Ross would be followed in England as well.^[2]

References

↑ 1991 SLT 564, 1991 JC 210.
↑ A. P. Simester, A. T. H. Smith, Harm and Culpability (1996), p. 140, n. 35.

External links

Full text of opinion from BAILII

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.