Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 2001)
Breach of the right to trial within a reasonable time does not of itself require criminal proceedings to be stayed, unless a fair trial is no longer possible or it is otherwise unfair to try the defendant.
Facts
Several prisoners were charged with offences arising out of a disturbance at a prison, but the trial did not take place until almost two years after the events. The trial judge stayed the proceedings, on the ground that the delay breached the defendants' right under article 6(1) of the European Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time. The Attorney General referred the question whether proceedings should be stayed in such a case.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that criminal proceedings may be stayed on the ground that there has been a violation of the reasonable time requirement only if a fair hearing is no longer possible, or it is for any compelling reason unfair to try the defendant. Lord Bingham said that the appropriate remedy for a breach of the reasonable time requirement depends on the circumstances, and may be a public acknowledgement of the breach, a reduction in sentence, or compensation, and that a stay would rarely be appropriate. The delay did not of itself mean that the trial could not be fair.
Related cases on prosecution decisions, abuse of process and pre-trial matters
- Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 1254
- R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL 60, [2009] 1 AC 756
- R (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] UKHL 45, [2010] 1 AC 345
- R v Abu Hamza [2006] EWCA Crim 2918, [2007] QB 659
- R v Gleeson [2003] EWCA Crim 3357
- R v Grant [2005] EWCA Crim 1089, [2006] QB 60
- R v H and C [2004] UKHL 3, [2004] 2 AC 134
- R v Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court, ex p Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42
Studying criminal procedure? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
