What can we help you with today?
UO, VP, WQ, XR, YS and ZT v HM Advocate
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.
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.
Playback unavailable: To safeguard the identity of vulnerable individuals, playback of 21 October recording is not available. Thank you for your understanding.
Cases: HCA/2025/ (039, 042, 047, 056, 044 and 052) /XC
Thursday, 22 October 2026
10:30 to 13:00 then 14:00 until conclusion
This is an archive of a livestream. Find out about restrictions on livestreaming.
UO, VP, WQ, XR, YS and ZT v HM Advocate
HCA/2025/039/XC
HCA/2025/042/XC
HCA/2025/047/XC
HCA/2025/056/XC
HCA/2025/044/XC
HCA/2025/052/XC
Appeals against Conviction
10:30 to 13:00 then 14:00 until conclusion
Gary Allan KC and Iona Young
Mark Mohammed KC and Valentina Mori
Simon Collins and Peter Barr
Graeme Brown KC and Graham McDonald
Lisa Gillespie KC and Iain Smith
Wendy Culross KC and Mairi Clare McMillan
[1] The appellants were convicted after a 10-week trial at the High Court of Justiciary at Glasgow of various sexual, violent and neglect offences against four very young children. At a continued diet of sentence on 27 January 2025, the trial judge imposed an Order for Lifelong Restriction on each appellant with punishment parts ranging from 8 years to 20 years’ imprisonment.
[2] Each appellant advances three grounds of appeal. They contend, first, that the trial judge erred in giving ad hoc directions to the jury on two occasions near the beginning of the trial. Secondly, it is argued that the trial judge’s charge to the jury was imbalanced as a whole and supportive of the Crown case. The third ground of appeal maintains that the consequence of the first two grounds is that the appellants could not enjoy a fair trial as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The sixth appellant advances a further ground of appeal which asserts that the trial judge erred by questioning his trial counsel at the end of his speech in front of the jury. He argues that this had the effect of undermining his trial counsel’s speech.
[3] The High Court of Justiciary Appeal Court will hear the appeal against conviction on Wednesday 21st November and Thursday 22nd November 2026 at 10:30am.