IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
LORD ADVOCATE’S REFERENCE
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO RAISE A DEVOLUTION ISSUE
on behalf of the Second Respondent
to the Petition of
COLIN BOYD QC, Her Majesty’ Advocate
PETITIONER
in terms of Section 123 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995
against
(FIRST) ANGELA ZELTER; (SECOND) BODIL ULLA RODER; and (THIRD) ELLEN MOXLEY
RESPONDENTS FORM 40.4 A HUMBLY SHEWETH:
October 2000
McCourts Solicitors
53 George IV Bridge
Edinburgh
That the present Lord Advocate’s Reference was initiated by the Lord Advocate on 21st January 2000 when it was lodged with the Clerk of Justiciary following the decision by Sheriff Gimblett, sitting in the Sheriffdom of North Strathclyde at Greenock, on 21 October 1999 (in a trial which had commenced on 26 September 1999) formally to instruct the jury to acquit all three accused (the respondents to the present petition) of charges relating to wilful and malicious damage arising out of an incident on 8 June 1999 when the three accused had boarded a vessel known as “Maytime” which was then moored in Loch Goil.
That ,Bodil Ulla Roder, the third accused in the original proceeding and the third respondent to the present petition intends to take part in the proceedings in accordance with her rights under Section 123 of the Criminal Proceedings (Scotland Act 1995. A hearing diet has been fixed in this matter for 9 to 13 October 2000.
That Bodil Ulla Roder intends to raise a devolution issue within the meaning of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act on the following grounds:
That the Lord Advocate has exceeded his powers in formulating questions under section 123 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 in a manner which violates the Minuter’s rights under Article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights. Namely, that the Lord Advocate has abused his right by framing a question, question 2, which refers specifically to “possession” of nuclear weapons which is not relevant to the case referred to in the Reference. The Lord Advocate has refused to formulate the proper question which would be a question designed to address the issue of threat or use of nuclear weapons. The improper formulation of question 2 means the Minuter is deprived of her right to address the material issue in the underlying case therefore constituting a breach of her rights under article 6(1)
The Minuter’s rights to her private and home life are protected under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, these rights have been interpreted as applying to her Professional life as a Trident Ploughshare Pledger. In this regard she has a substantial interest in ensuring that her professional actions as a Trident Ploughshare Pledger are not deemed to be unlawful. Unless question 2 is properly formulated the Minuter will be unable to address the issues raised in the Reference. In addition the Minuter has an interest in ensuring that her exposure to civil liability is not increased as a result of the Court Opinion.
That a copy of this minute has been duly intimated to Her Majesty’s Advocate, and to Angela Zelter, to Ellen Moxley, to Gerard Moynihan QC, amicus curiae and to the relevant authority within the meaning of Rule 40.1 conform to the executions attached to this minute
MAY IT THEREFORE PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS
To order that there be a diet and to assign a date for that diet
IN RESPECT WHEREOF
Joanna McDonald
Solicitor
McCourts
53 George IV Bridge
EDINBURGH