The accused, a police officer, was subject of a complaint by the person arrested of assault. The defendant complained that the delay in bringing charges (7 months) was excessive so as to be unfair.
Held: The question should be whether the delay would so prejudice the prospects of a fair trial to the extent that any such trial would be oppressive. A former, two stage, test was no longer to be followed. Delay before as well as after proceedings were begun could be looked at. In this case there was no such risk of prejudice from any delay.
Citations:
[1992] JC 53, [1992] CLY 5466, 1992 SLT 163
Citing:
Applied – Stuurman v HM Advocate 1980
The court was asked whether a fair trial could take place at all in the light of the pre-trial publicity.
Held: The court noted that the palliative of judicial directions can never be absolutely effective, but the judge had done what he could. . .
Overruled – Tudhope v McCarthy 1985
. .
Overruled – McGeown v HM Advocate 1989
. .
Overruled – Connachan v Douglas 1990
. .
Overruled – HM Advocate v Mechan 1991
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Dyer v Watson and Burrows PC 29-Jan-2002
Parties challenged the compliance of proceedings with the convention where there had been considerable delay.
Held: The reasonable detention provision (article 5(3)) and the reasonable time requirement (article 6(1)) conferred free-standing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Scotland, Criminal Practice
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.182771
