HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. R. [2001] ScotHC 118 (10 October 2001)

HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. R. [2001] ScotHC 118 (10 October 2001)

A breach of the reasonable time requirement under Article 6(1) ECHR does not, as a matter of law, require the court to bar the prosecution; effective redress may be afforded by other means, and the appropriate remedy is at the court's discretion, considering the circumstances and the public interest.

Citation
[2001] ScotHC 118
Parties
Prosecutor: Her Majesty's Advocate; Accused: R.
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Preliminary Diet on Plea in Bar of Trial
Outcome
Application to dismiss charges 1 and 3 refused; prosecution may proceed.
Legal Topics
Unreasonable Delay, Article 6 ECHR, Right to Fair Trial, Remedies for Breach of Reasonable Time Guarantee, Scotland Act 1998, Human Rights Act 1998
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Unreasonable Delay Article 6 ECHR Right to Fair Trial Remedies for Breach of Reasonable Time Guarantee Scotland Act 1998 +1 more

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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Advocate

Prosecutor

R.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Preliminary Diet on Plea in Bar of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does a violation of the 'reasonable time' guarantee under Article 6(1) ECHR require the court to bar prosecution or are alternative remedies available?
  2. 2 Is the Lord Advocate's prosecution of the accused on certain charges unlawful due to unreasonable delay?
  3. 3 What is the appropriate remedy for a breach of the reasonable time requirement under the Human Rights Act 1998 and Scotland Act 1998?

Ratio Decidendi

A breach of the reasonable time requirement under Article 6(1) ECHR does not, as a matter of law, require the court to bar the prosecution; effective redress may be afforded by other means, and the appropriate remedy is at the court's discretion, considering the circumstances and the public interest.

Court Disposition

Application to dismiss charges 1 and 3 refused; prosecution may proceed.

Orders

  • Preliminary diet adjourned to 10 October 2001.
  • Trial diet postponed to 29 October 2001.