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/2025/460/XC

Stuart Flood 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.

About this case

Case name

Stuart Flood v HM Advocate

Case reference

HCA/2025/460/XC

Type of appeal

Appeal against Conviction

Date of hearing

Wednesday 15 July 2026

Time of hearing

10:30 until conclusion

Judges

  • Lord Justice Clerk
  • Lord Matthews
  • Lady Carmichael

Counsel for the Appellant (SF)

Wendy Culross

Case description

[1] On 30 June 2025 the appellant was convicted at the High Court of Justiciary at Dundee of a single charge of attempted murder. The complainer was an infant. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of 7 years.

[2] The appellant challenges the conviction only on four bases: (i) that the medical evidence adduced at the trial was incorrectly admitted as the questioning of one of three medical experts surpassed the scope of her expertise from which a miscarriage of justice; (ii) that there were factual inaccuracies contained within the prosecutor’s speech to the jury; (iii) that the jury were told that they were able to convict the appellant if they were satisfied of similar occurrences of assault; and (iv) that the jury were not adequately addressed by the trial judge on the approach they should take when considering expert evidence and were not adequately balanced.

[3]   The appeal will be heard by the High Court of Justiciary Appeal Court on Wednesday 15 July 2026.