Sheriff rebuked for ‘cross-examination’ and telling lawyer to ‘sit down’

Adnan Ahmed had been convicted at Glasgow Sheriff Court of threatening and abusive behaviour towards five women. He would film himself approaching them and asking them out and had been jailed for two years. His conviction has now been quashed by judges in the Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary.

Counsel for the appellant, Claire Mitchell QC, said that Sheriff Lindsay Wood’s questions “would have led the independent observer to reach the view that the sheriff had formed an adverse view of his credibility”.

Sheriff Wood said in his report to the appeal court that there was enough evidence on the charges to be considered by the jurors.

The judges, however, disagreed. They said the evidence did not indicate that Mr Ahmed was guilty of threatening behaviour.

Lord Turnbull wrote: “It does not seem to us that a polite conversational request or compliment can be construed as threatening merely because it is uninvited or unwelcome.”

Sheriff Wood was also criticised by the judges for his “cross-examination”.

Lord Turnbull wrote: “The trial sheriff engaged in an exercise which could only be described as cross-examination.

“The informed and impartial observer would readily have concluded that the sheriff had formed an adverse view on the credibility of the appellant’s evidence.

“The result was a miscarriage of justice and the appeal against conviction on each charge must be upheld on this ground.”

The judges also found that Sheriff Wood’s behaviour in telling advocate Donna Armstrong to sit down was “unacceptable”.

Lord Turnbull wrote: “In the present case counsel was correct to object to the sheriff’s questioning when she did.

“It is unacceptable for a judicial office holder to address a responsible practitioner by telling her to sit down.

“Such behaviour carries the risk of demeaning the standing of the judiciary in the eyes of both the legal profession and of the public.”