HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. WILLIAM MAXWELL LITTLE [1999] ScotHC 163 (17th June, 1999)

The Lord Advocate has no power to proceed to trial on charges 3, 4, 5, and 6 after an unreasonable delay of 11 years and 1 month between charge and indictment, as this would infringe the accused's right under Article 6(1) ECHR to a hearing within a reasonable time, contrary to section 57(2) Scotland Act 1998.

Citation: [1999] ScotHC 163
Parties: Prosecutor: Her Majesty's Advocate; Accused: William Maxwell Little
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Procedural Posture: Criminal / Pre Trial (plea in Bar of Trial)
Outcome: plea in bar of trial sustained (charges 3, 4, 5, and 6)
Legal Topics: Delay in Prosecution, Reasonable Time for Trial, Article 6 ECHR, Scotland Act 1998, Devolution Issue

Criminal Law Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Delay in Prosecution Reasonable Time for Trial Article 6 ECHR Scotland Act 1998 Devolution Issue

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Her Majesty's Advocate

Prosecutor

William Maxwell Little

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial (plea in Bar of Trial)

Legal Issues

1 Whether the delay between charge and trial infringed the accused's right to a hearing within a reasonable time under Article 6(1) ECHR
2 Whether the Lord Advocate has power to proceed to trial after unreasonable delay under section 57(2) Scotland Act 1998

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

plea in bar of trial sustained (charges 3, 4, 5, and 6)

Orders

Lord Advocate prohibited from proceeding to trial on charges 3, 4, 5, and 6 due to unreasonable delay and incompatibility with Convention rights.
Order under section 4 Contempt of Court Act 1981 prohibiting publication or report of proceedings referencing evidence until conclusion of trial.