This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6390123.stm

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Crown challenges Rosepark ruling Crown challenges Rosepark ruling
(40 minutes later)
The Crown Office is appealing against the decision to dismiss charges faced by the owners of the Rosepark nursing home where 14 elderly residents died.The Crown Office is appealing against the decision to dismiss charges faced by the owners of the Rosepark nursing home where 14 elderly residents died.
The broke out at the home in Uddingston on 31 January, 2004. A fire broke out at the home in Uddingston on 31 January, 2004.
On Wednesday, Lord Hardie dismissed the charges against owners Thomas Balmer, Anne Balmer and Alan Balmer.On Wednesday, Lord Hardie dismissed the charges against owners Thomas Balmer, Anne Balmer and Alan Balmer.
He ruled that the charges had been wrongly framed by the Crown Office. A formal appeal against his decision has now been lodged.He ruled that the charges had been wrongly framed by the Crown Office. A formal appeal against his decision has now been lodged.
A spokesperson for the Crown Office said: "A date for the appeal will be fixed in due course."A spokesperson for the Crown Office said: "A date for the appeal will be fixed in due course."
Lord Hardie made his ruling after hearing legal arguments at the High Court in Glasgow.Lord Hardie made his ruling after hearing legal arguments at the High Court in Glasgow.
However, he also stressed that the decision did not mean there would be no further proceedings as a result of the fire.However, he also stressed that the decision did not mean there would be no further proceedings as a result of the fire.
He said it was a matter for the lord advocate to decide what further action should be taken against the husband and wife and their son.He said it was a matter for the lord advocate to decide what further action should be taken against the husband and wife and their son.