HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. GILBERT DOUGLAS NULTY [2000] ScotHC 18 (17th February, 2000)

HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. GILBERT DOUGLAS NULTY [2000] ScotHC 18 (17th February, 2000)

Admitting the complainer's evidence from the earlier trial does not breach the accused's rights under Article 6(1) and 6(3)(d) ECHR, given the existence of corroboration requirements, the ability to challenge credibility under section 259(4), and the possibility of judicial directions to the jury. The overall fairness of the trial is preserved despite the defence's inability to cross-examine the complainer on new information.

Citation
[2000] ScotHC 18
Parties
Prosecutor: HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE; Accused: GILBERT DOUGLAS NULTY
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
application to exclude evidence refused
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Hearsay, Right to Fair Trial, Cross Examination, European Convention on Human Rights
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Admissibility of Evidence Hearsay Right to Fair Trial Cross Examination European Convention on Human Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE

Prosecutor

GILBERT DOUGLAS NULTY

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether admitting the complainer's prior trial evidence breaches the accused's rights under Article 6(1) and 6(3)(d) ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the accused's inability to cross-examine the complainer on new information renders the trial unfair

Ratio Decidendi

Admitting the complainer's evidence from the earlier trial does not breach the accused's rights under Article 6(1) and 6(3)(d) ECHR, given the existence of corroboration requirements, the ability to challenge credibility under section 259(4), and the possibility of judicial directions to the jury. The overall fairness of the trial is preserved despite the defence's inability to cross-examine the complainer on new information.

Court Disposition

application to exclude evidence refused

Orders

  • The motion to exclude the complainer's prior trial evidence is refused.
  • The complainer's evidence from the earlier trial is admitted as evidence in this trial.