PROCURATOR FISCAL, ELGIN v. EUAN PATRICK MASTERSON [2014] ScotSC 2 (07 January 2014)

PROCURATOR FISCAL, ELGIN v. EUAN PATRICK MASTERSON [2014] ScotSC 2 (07 January 2014)

There was no delay amounting to oppression or breach of Article 6 rights, as the statutory time limit had not expired and no fair trial impossibility was shown. The Crown was not personally barred from proceeding, as no undertaking was given to the accused. The accused's expectation of abandonment was not legitimate. Any prejudice could be addressed at sentencing.

Citation
[2014] ScotSC 2
Parties
Prosecutor: Procurator Fiscal, Elgin; Accused: Euan Patrick Masterson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Summary Complaint / Preliminary and Devolution Minutes Argued Prior to Plea
Outcome
Preliminary and devolution minutes repelled; prosecution to proceed.
Legal Topics
Oppression Due to Delay, Right to Fair Trial, Article 6 ECHR, Prosecution Procedure, Personal Bar, Public Interest in Prosecution
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Oppression Due to Delay Right to Fair Trial Article 6 ECHR Prosecution Procedure Personal Bar Public Interest in Prosecution

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Procurator Fiscal, Elgin

Prosecutor

Euan Patrick Masterson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Summary Complaint / Preliminary and Devolution Minutes Argued Prior to Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay in prosecution amounted to oppression at common law or breach of Article 6 ECHR right to fair trial
  2. 2 Whether Crown was personally barred from proceeding with prosecution after allowing original complaint to fall
  3. 3 Whether legitimate expectation of abandonment of prosecution arose for accused

Ratio Decidendi

There was no delay amounting to oppression or breach of Article 6 rights, as the statutory time limit had not expired and no fair trial impossibility was shown. The Crown was not personally barred from proceeding, as no undertaking was given to the accused. The accused's expectation of abandonment was not legitimate. Any prejudice could be addressed at sentencing.

Court Disposition

Preliminary and devolution minutes repelled; prosecution to proceed.

Orders

  • Accused to plead to the complaint.