Scottish Human Rights Law Group

The accused were public works contractors, being prosecuted under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for alleged contamination of a public water supply in Edinburgh and environs following a spill of diesel oil from machinery being operated by the accused while carrying out road resurfacing works. The result  was that the water supply to parts of Edinburgh and surrounding districts had to be suspended.   The accused claimed that any trial which was to be convened in Edinburgh would not be before an impartial and independent jury as those balloted could potentially come from affected areas and effectively could be complainers whose water supply had been affected.    

In rejecting the fairness/jury challenge the court held that sufficient safeguards were in place to ensure that juries were independent and impartial as the jury would be selected by ballot, their addresses would be disclosed and it might be that they had not been affected.   The court held that it would be wrong to equate them with victims as it was not clear why inconvenience caused by turning off the water supply should cause a juror to hold a grudge and fail to perform his or her duty according to oath. Furthermore, potential jurors would be told at court of the names of the accused and nature of the charge and be given an opportunity to state reasons why they ought not to serve.