Her Majesty's Advocate v. D.P. [2007] ScotHC HCJ_07 (13 August 2007)

Her Majesty's Advocate v. D.P. [2007] ScotHC HCJ_07 (13 August 2007)

The court held that although the 11-year delay was cause for concern, the authorities acted with reasonable diligence given the lack of corroborating evidence in 1996. The failure to interview another potential complainer did not amount to unreasonable delay. The indictment's time specifications were justified by available information, and there was no material risk of real prejudice warranting separation of charges. The preliminary and devolution issues were dismissed.

Citation
[2007] ScotHC HCJ_07
Parties
Prosecutor: Her Majesty's Advocate; Accused: D P
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Preliminary Hearing, Ruling on Preliminary Issues and Devolution Issue
Outcome
preliminary and devolution issues dismissed; prosecution to proceed
Legal Topics
Unreasonable Delay, Article 6 ECHR, Specification of Charges, Separation of Charges, Devolution Issue
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Unreasonable Delay Article 6 ECHR Specification of Charges Separation of Charges 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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Advocate

Prosecutor

D P

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Preliminary Hearing, Ruling on Preliminary Issues and Devolution Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an 11-year delay between police interview and prosecution violates Article 6(1) ECHR right to trial within a reasonable time
  2. 2 Whether the indictment provides sufficient specification of time to allow a fair trial and special defence of alibi
  3. 3 Whether charges should be separated to avoid prejudice to the accused

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although the 11-year delay was cause for concern, the authorities acted with reasonable diligence given the lack of corroborating evidence in 1996. The failure to interview another potential complainer did not amount to unreasonable delay. The indictment's time specifications were justified by available information, and there was no material risk of real prejudice warranting separation of charges. The preliminary and devolution issues were dismissed.

Court Disposition

preliminary and devolution issues dismissed; prosecution to proceed

Orders

  • Devolution minute dismissed
  • Minute on specification dismissed