||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 253 (May)
|| UKSC 24
Lord Hope DP, Lord Rodger, Lord Brown, Lord Kerr and Lord Dyson SCJJ
||ME Scott QC, Christopher Shead and Martin Richardson (instructed by JP Mowberry Ltd) for the defendant.
||Frank Mulholland QC and Gordon Balfour (instructed by the Crown Agent, Crown Office) for the Crown.
||25 May 2011
Criminal evidence - Disclosure of evidence - Murder - Jurisdiction - Defendant convicted of murder of wife - Fresh undisclosed evidence tending to undermine prosecution case - Defendant appealing against conviction to High Court of Justiciary - Appeal court refusing to allow devolution minute presented by defendant and dismissing appeal - Whether Supreme Court having jurisdiction to hear appeal - Whether appeal court applying correct test - Whether violation of right to fair trial - Whether conviction unsafe - European Convention on Human Rights, art 6.
Criminal evidence Disclosure of evidence. The Supreme Court held that, the applicable test to determine whether non-disclosure of information by the Crown had breached the right to a fair trial under art6 of the European Convention on Human Rights was that laid down in McInnes v HM Advocate (Scotland) and that, applying that test, there had been a miscarriage of justice at the defendant's trial for the murder of his wife where the Crown had failed to disclose evidence which might have materially weakened the Crown case as presented at the trial.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases