Introduction

The case of Her Majesty's Advocate against Graham Cameron Turner ([2020] ScotHC HCJ_12) presented a complex legal question concerning the applicability of the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice. This case revolved around whether Graham Turner, who faced charges related to a fatal motor vehicle accident, could be rightfully charged with perverting the course of justice based on statements he made to bystanders and ambulance personnel prior to formal police involvement.

The pivotal issue was whether Turner’s accounts to non-authoritative individuals constituted an interference with the course of justice, thereby justifying the additional charge. The parties involved included the Crown, represented by Davie QC and AD, and Turner’s defense counsel from Duff; Brodies, Glasgow.

Summary of the Judgment

In his opinion, Lord Turnbull examined the relevance of the second charge against Turner—attempting to pervert the course of justice. He meticulously analyzed whether Turner's statements to Ms. Sheridan, Mr. Stewart, and ambulance personnel occurred within the commencement of a criminal investigation. Lord Turnbull concluded that these early interactions were not part of an ongoing investigation and thus did not constitute an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Consequently, he deemed the second charge irrelevant and dismissed it.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Lord Turnbull referenced several key cases to underpin his reasoning:

• Dean v Stewart (1980): Established that telling lies to the police during an investigation can constitute perverting the course of justice.
• Hanley v HM Advocate (2018): Clarified that perverting the course of justice involves interference with the normal progression of justice.
• Watson v HM Advocate (1993): Emphasized determining when a course of justice begins based on the initiation of a criminal investigation.
• Waddell and Currie v MacPhail (1986): Demonstrated that providing false information to police can amount to perverting the course of justice.
• Davidson v HM Advocate (1990): Highlighted that concocting a false alibi to hinder prosecution qualifies as perversion of justice.

These precedents collectively informed the court's stance on what constitutes interference with the judicial process, particularly distinguishing between spontaneous statements made to concerned parties and deliberate attempts to obstruct lawful investigations.

Legal Reasoning

Lord Turnbull's legal reasoning centered on two primary considerations:

• Commencement of the Course of Justice: Determining when an investigation officially begins was crucial. He assessed whether Turner's interactions occurred during an active investigation.
• Nature of the Statements: Evaluating whether Turner's statements were intended to obstruct or merely represent his account of events without malintent.

The court concluded that Turner's conversations with bystanders and ambulance staff occurred before any formal investigation was initiated by the police. These interactions were part of an immediate emergency response rather than a structured inquiry into the incident. Therefore, they did not meet the threshold for perverting the course of justice.

Furthermore, Lord Turnbull differentiated between providing a false name to evade prosecution and presenting a false account to assert innocence. He posited that the latter does not inherently obstruct justice unless it actively hinders an ongoing investigation.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future cases in Scottish law:

• Clarification of Boundaries: It delineates the scope of what constitutes perverting the course of justice, particularly distinguishing between pre-investigation statements and actions during an active investigation.
• Charging Practices: The decision signals caution in charging defendants with attempting to pervert the course of justice solely based on statements made prior to official investigations.
• Defensive Posture: It reinforces the idea that defendants have the right to present their account without it being automatically construed as obstructive unless there is clear intent to interfere.

Overall, this judgment emphasizes the necessity for prosecutors to demonstrate a clear nexus between the defendant's actions and an active obstruction of the judicial process.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The judgment in HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE vs. GRAHAM CAMERON TURNER serves as a pivotal reference in understanding the limits of what constitutes an attempt to pervert the course of justice within Scottish law. By underscoring the importance of the timing and intent behind a defendant's statements, the court provided clarity on distinguishing between innocent expressions of defense and deliberate attempts to obstruct legal proceedings. This decision not only influences future prosecutorial strategies but also upholds the balance between effective law enforcement and the rights of the accused to present their narrative without undue criminalization.