Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2013] All ER (D) 110 (Jun)
Neutral Citation: [2013] UKSC 36
Court: Supreme Court
Judge:

Lord Hope DP, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes and Lord Toulson SCJJ

Representation John Carroll, Liam Ewing and Ann Ogg (instructed by Drummond Miller LLP) for the first appellant.
  William McVicar, Gerard Considine and Liam O'Donnell (instructed by Fitzpatrick & Co) for the second appellant.
  Dorothy Bain QC, Douglas Fairley QC and Susanne Tanner (instructed by the Appeals Unit, Crown Office) for the respondent.
Judgment Dates: 13 June 2013

Catchwords

Criminal law - Trial - Open court - Right to a fair trial - Appellants being interviewed in relation to victim's murder - Appellants being charged with murder seven years later - Appellants being tried for sexual offences in separate trial before murder trial - Same judge presiding over both trials - Appellants being convicted of murder - Appellants appealing - Whether there being undue delay in bringing prosecution - Whether there being appearance of bias - European Convention on Human Rights, art 6.

The Case

Criminal law Trial. In 1998, the appellants were interviewed in respect of a murder, but were not formally charged. In April 2005, they were charged with the victim's murder. In May 2010, they were convicted of a number of sexual offences. In June, they were convicted of the victim's murder. The same judge presided over both trials. The appellants sought to appeal to the Supreme Court on the grounds of undue delay and apparent bias. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the date when the reasonable time for their prosecution had begun was when the appellants were formally charged in April 2005 and that there was no basis for the suggestion that the judge was apparently biased due to his involvement in both trials.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.