Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2011] All ER (D) 253 (May)
Neutral Citation: [2011] UKSC 24
Court: Supreme Court

Lord Hope DP, Lord Rodger, Lord Brown, Lord Kerr and Lord Dyson SCJJ

Representation 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.
Judgment Dates: 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.

The Case

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.

Practice Areas

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