Transco Plc v Her Majesty’s Advocates: HCJ 16 Sep 2004

A dwellinghouse had exploded, killing the occupants. The defendant was to be tried for alleged breaches of the 1974 Act in the gas supoplies to the house. The appellant complained that a jury trial would be an infringement of its rights, since a jury asked to sit for three to six months would be prejudiced against it, and be unable to deliver a proper verdict.
Held: Applying Heasman, it was for the appellant to show that a jury trial would necessarily result in an infringement of its rights. That had not been shown. The absence of reasons from a jury’s verdict did not make for an unfair trial.
Lord Maclean and Lord Osborne And Lord Hamilton
[2004] ScotHC 57, [2004] ScotHC 68
ScotC, Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3
CitedRegina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
CitedRefik Saric v Denmark ECHR 2-Feb-1999
The appellant complained that the absence of reasons from a jury’s verdict meant that the trial had been unfair.
Held: ‘The absence of reasons in the High Court’s judgment was due to the fact that the applicant’s guilt was determined by a . .
CitedMatthew Heasman v J M Taylor and Partners SCS 8-Mar-2002
Appropriateness of use of jury in civil trials in Scotland. . .
CitedRegina v Davies CACD 2003
The defendant said that section 40 of the 1974 Act was not compatible with the presumption of innocence in Article 6(2) of the Convention, unless the section was read down to impose only an evidential burden on the defendant.
Held: The Act was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 January 2021; Ref: scu.213656