Khaliq v HM Advocate

This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (February 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Part of a series on
Scots law
Administration Justice and Communities Directorate of the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Justice Judicial Appointments Board Judicial Complaints Reviewer Parole Board for Scotland Legal Aid Board Courts & Tribunals Service College of Justice Office of the Public Guardian Scottish Sentencing Council Law Commission Criminal Cases Review Commission Prison Service
Civil courts Court of Session Lord President Lord Justice Clerk Lord of Session Office of the Accountant of Court Acts of Sederunt Sheriff Court Sheriff Appeal Court Sheriff Principal Sheriff Personal Injury Court Sheriff
Criminal courts High Court of Justiciary Lord Justice-General Lord Justice Clerk Lords Commissioner of Justiciary Acts of Adjournal Sheriff courts Sheriff Appeal Court Sheriff Principal Sheriffs Justice of the peace courts Justices of the peace
Special courts Court of the Lord Lyon Lord Lyon King of Arms Children's Reporter Administration Children's Hearings Land Court Lands Tribunal Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal
Criminal prosecution Lord Advocate Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service Advocate Depute Procurator fiscal Fiscal fine Precognition
Legal profession Judiciary Faculty of Advocates Advocate Law Society Solicitor-Advocate Solicitor Association of Commercial Attorneys Scottish Legal Complaints Commission
v t e

Khaliq and Anor v HMA was a Scottish criminal case brought in 1983 and decided by the High Court of Justiciary sitting as the Court of Criminal Appeal, in which it was decided that it was an offence at common law to supply materials that were otherwise legal in the knowledge that they would be used for self-harm.

Two shopkeepers in Glasgow were arrested and charged, amongst other offences, with supplying to children ‘glue-sniffing kits’ consisting of a quantity of petroleum-based glue in a plastic bag. They had been previously warned by the police to stop supplying the kits. They gave notice of objection to the indictment, averring that, on the charge of supplying, the facts as libelled did not disclose a crime known to Scots law because there was nothing illegal about the items that they had supplied. Their plea was repelled at a preliminary diet and they appealed.

On appeal, the High Court took the view that, even though Evostik glue and plastic bags might be perfectly legal, everyday items, the two shopkeepers knew perfectly well what the children were going to use the articles for and the charge on the indictment should stand. 'The Court refused to accept that there was any distinction between supply with knowledge of likely abuse and actual administration of a dangerous substance to a child.'^[1]

Said Lord Justice General Emslie: ‘There is ample authority for the view that the wilful and reckless administration of a dangerous substance to another causing injury or death is a crime at common law in Scotland’.^[2]

When the case finally came to trial at Glasgow High Court the two were each sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.

This case is reported at 1983 SCCR 483 (CCA); 1984 JC 23; 1984 SLT 137.

This article related to law in Scotland is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

• v
• t
• e

This case law article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

• v
• t
• e