[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Moore v Scottish Ministers [2000] ScotCS 77 (23 March 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2000/77.html Cite as: [2000] ScotCS 77

[New search] [Help]

[1] In this action the pursuer seeks certain declarators and monetary orders in relation to what he alleges to be an unlawful detention in prison as a prisoner. The matter came before me in respect of a motion for interim liberation on 23 March. After a hearing lasting approximately one hour I refused the motion giving effect to the argument advanced by the defenders. I gave no written reasons since I was not asked to do so, nor was I informed that the matter would be reclaimed. Neither my clerk nor myself has subsequently been so informed until an application for the issue of this opinion was made directly to my clerk by agents for the pursuer on 12 May last. Any inadequacies in this opinion are attributable to the inordinate delay, putting aside any question of lack of courtesy, in making such a request by those agents.

[2] According to my notes, since I have very little recollection of the hearing being one of a number of contested motions I heard that day, the argument advanced on behalf of the pursuer in support of a prima facie case for interim liberation depended upon what is averred in the Summons in relation to the history of the case and the re-imposition of part of the original sentence by Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, in terms of section 16(2)(a) of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 ("the 1993 Act"). In particular, in Article 5 of condescendence the pursuer avers why he maintains that the unconditional release date in his case in relation to the 1999 sentence was 15 March 2000.

[3] The position, again according to my notes, adopted on behalf of the defenders before me, was that given the terms of section 16(7) of the 1993 Act, having been amended into its present form, the making of the order by Lord Cameron of Lochbroom in this case, revoked the licence upon which the pursuer's right to liberty depended, which licence was of course running at the time he committed the offence which led to Lord Cameron of Lochbroom's re-imposition of part of the licence period of the previous sentence. The effect, it was submitted, of that revocation is that there is no licence upon which the pursuer can currently claim liberty until such is re-imposed by the Parole Board, and until that is established the pursuer is subject to the whole of the original sentence.

[4] In my opinion, given the terms of section 16(7) as they now stand, the argument for the defenders is correct and the consequence is that until such time as a further application for a further licence is made by the pursuer and that succeeds, he is liable to serve the balance of the sentence originally imposed. I therefore refused the motion.

[5] I should add that the defenders also made a submission in relation to the balance of convenience which was to the effect that the motion should not be granted because of the pursuer's propensity to violence. I did not have to consider this matter in view of the position that I have adopted.