Scottish Human Rights Law Group

It was argued on behalf of a public gas transporter charged with causing the deaths of four individuals following an explosion at a dwelling house that there were insufficient procedural safeguards to ensure that they would receive a fair trial at the hands of a jury on the basis that no reasons would be provided for the jury’s verdict, and that if the verdict taken together with the judge’s charge could be considered reasons, they were inadequate in the circumstances.  

It was also some persons cited as potential jurors would seek to be excused, and in the absence of published criteria as to how such excusals should be considered, and the lack of opportunity for an accused to make submissions on the matter, the court before which the trial would take place would not be independent and impartial. In dismissing these arguments as speculative and fanciful the court observed that notwithstanding that any trial was likely to involve complex evidence and be of substantial duration, the submissions made on behalf of the accused company materially exaggerated the difficulties which a jury would face. The court noted that it had never been considered thought in Scotland that a jury in solemn criminal proceedings would be incapable of reaching a just decision in any case, even one of the greatest complexity. The role of a jury in criminal trials was long established and quite different from that required of a jury in civil proofs.