Her Majesty's Advocate v. C.A.M. [2012] HCJAC 161

Crown Appeal under Section 74 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995:- In this appeal from the sheriff court the Crown conceded that there had been an unreasonable delay in respect of the bringing to trial of the appellant in relation to two charges of lewd, indecent and libidinous practices involving 15 year old girls. The trial diet took place on 20 August 2012, almost 2 years after the appellant was charged in September 2010. The issue considered here by the court was what the remedy should be following that unreasonable delay. The sheriff considered the appropriate test as set out in Speirs v Ruddy 2008 SCCR 131 by Lord Bingham at paras 15-17. Here the court considered whether the sheriff exercised her discretion correctly in holding that the fairness of the trial would be jeopordised as “a delay of almost 2 years, caused by the Crown, would, in my view compromise the ability of any jury to assess the complainers…” or whether any potential prejudice to the appellant could properly be dealt with by way of direction to the jury. The court also considered whether an appropriate remedy in the circumstances might be a restriction to any sentence imposed notwithstanding what the sheriff considered to be potential complications arising from the notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.