Dyer v Watson: The Case of the Delayed Trials

Dyer v Watson
[2002] H.R.L.R. 21
Privy Council (Scotland)

29 January 2002

Brief Summary:

This case involves two unrelated appeals where the defendants argued that the to much time had elapsed between the date they were charged with a crime and the date of their trial.  None of the defendants were in custody during this time so the only issue was the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).  The Privy Council found that the amount of elapsed time (20 months) was reasonable in one case (two police officers accused of perjury) and the amount of elapsed time (27 months) was unreasonable in the other (13-year-old boy accused of sexually abusing other, related children). In the second case, the Privy Council dismissed the boy's appeal and allowed his prosecution to be discontinued.

 

The Facts:

Appellants Watson and Burrows:  On April 22, 1998, two police officers were accused of perjury in open court by the sheriff.  The two officers were charged with perjury in January 1999 with a projected trial trial date of August or September 2000, 20 months later.  The officers argued that, due to the publicity and their status as police officers, their trial should have been expedited.

Appellant JK: On October 31, 1998, JK, a 13-year-old boy was charged with rape, sodomy and other serious indecency charges against his cousins, aged between eight and three.  An indictment was not served upon JK until January 29, 2001, 27 months later.  JK argued that any criminal case against a child shall from the outset be handled expeditiously, without any unnecessary delay.

The Holding:

Because none of the appellants were in custody while awaiting trial, only ECHR Article 6 (right to a fair trial) was implicated.  Part of Article 6 states that defendants are entitled to a hearing "within a reasonable time," which is right independent of the other rights in Article 6 so that satisfaction of the other rights has no bearing on whether the right to a hearing "within a reasonable time" was satisfied. According to the Privy Council, the object of the reasonable time requirement is to ensure that everyone against whom criminal proceedings were brought was guaranteed a final decision within a reasonable time and to prevent a person being left too long in a state of uncertainty about their fate - there is no requirement that the defendant show they were actually "prejudiced" by the delay.  

Moreover, the word "reasonable" means that each case should be decided with regard to its own facts and circumstances.  Once that inquiry has been made, it is up to the state to justify any lapse of time which appeared to be excessive.  Finally, the Privy Council recognized three areas as calling for particular inquiry: (1) the complexity of the case, (2) the conduct of the defendant, and (3) the manner in which the case had been dealt with by the administrative and judicial authorities.

Watson and Burrows: The case was described as simple but involving a serious accusation against police officers.  The Privy Council found that the state had provided sufficient explanation for the prosecutorial delay and there was no Article 6 violation.

JK: The Privy Council found there were large periods of inactivity in the proceedings that the state had not adequately explained.  Further, due to JK's age, these delays were potentially prejudicial and psychologically harmful to JK and his alleged victims.  Accordingly, the Privy Council held that the prosecution against JK should not proceed.

Villain?

 

Another difficult case. Watson and Burrows did not succeed in their appeal so only JK should be considered.  JK was accused of sexual abuse of other, younger children in his family but the case never went to trial so it is unclear whether he actually committed those offenses.  The presumption of innocence leaves me with the conclusion that JK is not a villain.