Limits to Powers in Devolution Cases
Mr Spiers had complained as to the competency of two temporary sheriffs called to hear case against him, saying that the temporary nature of their appointments did not allow them to constitute an independent tribunal. He now complained that the subsequent delay in hearing his cases had prevented a fair trial.
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill referred to the need for reticence, given the Board’s restricted role in deciding devolution issues. It is not for the Board to comment on the test that is applied in fresh evidence appeals which do not raise a devolution issue. Its task is to identify the test where the complaint is of non-disclosure in violation of the article 6(1) right to a fair trial.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill
[2007] UKPC D2, [2008] HRLR 14, 2007 GWD 40-700, 2008 SLT 39, [2008] 2 WLR 608, [2008] 1 AC 873, 2008 SCCR 131
Bailii
Scotland Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – Regina v HM Advocate and The Advocate General for Scotland PC 28-Nov-2002
(The High Court of Justiciary) The prosecution had accepted that the matter had been the subject of unreasonable delay, but wished to continue. The defendant sought a plea in bar, on the basis that continuing would infringe his rights.
Held: . .
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001) HL 11-Dec-2003
The house was asked whether it might be correct to stay criminal proceedings as an abuse where for delay. The defendants were prisoners in a prison riot in 1998. The case only came on for trial in 2001, when they submitted that the delay was an . .
Cited by:
Cited – Rutter, Regina (on the Application of) v The General Teaching Council for England Admn 1-Feb-2008
The applicant challenged a decision of disciplinary committee to go ahead with an allegation of misconduct after considerable delay by council and failure to abide by its own rules. After not receiving a notice of proceedings the applicant had . .
Cited – McInnes v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 10-Feb-2010
The defendant complained that the prosecution had not disclosed the fact that a prosecution witness had convictions, and that had it been disclosed it would have undermined the prosecution. Other statements taken were not disclosed as had later . .
Cited – Imperial Tobacco Ltd v The Lord Advocate SC 12-Dec-2012
The claimant company said that the 2010 Act was outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament insofar as it severely restricted the capacity of those selling cigarettes to display them for sale. They suggested two faults. First, that the subject . .
Cited – Her Majesty’s Advocate v CAM ScSf 21-Nov-2012
The appellant challenged his conviction saying that there had been too long a delay in his trial. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Constitutional, Human Rights
Leading Case
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.262253