We use cookies to collect anonymous data to help us improve your site browsing experience.

Click 'Accept all cookies' to agree to all cookies that collect anonymous data. To only allow the cookies that make the site work, click 'Use essential cookies only.' Visit 'Set cookie preferences' to control specific cookies.

Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Search

What can we help you with today?

Skip to main

Case: HCA/2025/138/XC

RS v HM Advocate

Livestreaming of the Criminal Appeal Court

Notice to viewers

References may be made to sexual offences, violence, or other sensitive matters. Some viewers may find the content distressing.

Where necessary, certain information may be restricted to protect the identity of complainers and witnesses.

Restrictions

Hearings are livestreamed as part of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service’s support for open justice.

Please note that recording, storing or broadcasting the proceedings is only possible if permitted under the law on fair dealing or if authorised by the Lord President under the Judicial Office for Scotland Broadcast Protocol.

Any unauthorised capture, re-use, re-editing or redistribution of the material could attract liability for breach of copyright, in addition to the possibility of contempt of court proceedings.

Watch previous livestream hearing

RS v HM Advocate

Case: HCA/2025/138/XC

Wednesday, 20 May 2026

10:30 until conclusion

Welcome. Hearings are livestreamed as part of the SCTS's support of open justice.

This is an archive of a livestream. Find out about restrictions on livestreaming.

About this case

Case name

RS v HM Advocate

Case reference

HCA/2025/138/XC

Type of appeal

Appeal against Conviction

Date of hearing

Wednesday 20 May 2026

Time of hearing

10:30 until conclusion

Judges

  • Lord Justice General
  • Lord Matthews
  • Lady Wise

Counsel for the Appellant (RS)

Tony Lenehan KC

Case description

The appellant was convicted of domestic and sexual offending for which he received an extended sentence. The indictment included a docket libelling conduct towards the first complainer for which the appellant had already been prosecuted and convicted at summary level. The conduct libelled was a threat to damage the complainer’s property and repeatedly contacting them by telephone and text message. The appellant now appeals on the basis that the trial judge materially misdirected the jury as to the use they could make of the docket evidence.