HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. D.P. AND S.M. [2001] ScotHC 115 (16 February 2001)

HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. D.P. AND S.M. [2001] ScotHC 115 (16 February 2001)

The delay of nearly two years between charging and trial was unreasonable given the accused's age and the need for special expedition in cases involving children. The Crown failed to treat the case with the required urgency, and no satisfactory explanation was provided for the cumulative delays. The charges were not brought to trial within a reasonable time as required by Article 6(1) ECHR.

Citation
[2001] ScotHC 115
Parties
Prosecutor: Her Majesty's Advocate; First Accused: D P; Second Accused: S M
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Preliminary Diet, Plea in Bar of Trial
Outcome
indictment dismissed as incompetent
Legal Topics
Reasonable Time for Trial, Juvenile Justice, Delay in Prosecution, Article 6 ECHR, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Reasonable Time for Trial Juvenile Justice Delay in Prosecution Article 6 ECHR UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Advocate

Prosecutor

D P

First Accused

S M

Second Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Preliminary Diet, Plea in Bar of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused's right to a hearing within a reasonable time under Article 6(1) ECHR was breached
  2. 2 Whether delay in prosecution is justified in cases involving children

Ratio Decidendi

The delay of nearly two years between charging and trial was unreasonable given the accused's age and the need for special expedition in cases involving children. The Crown failed to treat the case with the required urgency, and no satisfactory explanation was provided for the cumulative delays. The charges were not brought to trial within a reasonable time as required by Article 6(1) ECHR.

Court Disposition

indictment dismissed as incompetent

Orders

  • pleas in bar of trial sustained
  • charges dismissed