Excessively long proceedings violated Scottish prisoners’ article 6 rights

The applicants, Charles Bernard O’Neill and William Hugh Lauchlan, were born in 1962 and 1976 respectively and are currently detained in HMP Glenochil and HMP Edinburgh.

In August 1998 the applicants were convicted of various sexual offences and sentenced to periods of imprisonment of eight and six years respectively. In September 1998, while serving their sentence, both applicants were detained by the police and interrogated in relation to the disappearance and suspected murder of a woman, Allison McGarrigle with whom they had shared an flat. Neither was charged or arrested following the interviews due to insufficient evidence.

In April 2005, charges were brought against them for the murder of Ms McGarrigle and for concealing and disposing of her body. However, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service decided not to prosecute due to concerns over insufficiency of evidence and, in the following three years, conducted periodic reviews of that decision. New evidence then came to light which led the Crown to conclude that there had been a change in the prospects of securing both applicants’ conviction and the applicants were thus indicted in September 2008.

Between their indictment and trial, lasting 20 months, the applicants lodged a number of motions and appeals, arguing in particular that they could not receive a fair trial owing to the significant delay which had occurred in their case, all without success.

The applicants’ murder trial, which took place between May and June 2010 with the Crown leading evidence from over 50 witnesses, ended in their conviction for murder and attempting to pervert the court of justice. Between June 2010 and June 2014 the applicants lodged appeals against their conviction and sentence as well as ancillary appeals, including a complaint under article 6 (right to fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights about undue delay in the proceedings. The applicants’ appeals against conviction and sentence were finally dismissed in March 2014 (Mr O’Neill) and June 2014 (Mr Lauchlan).

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicants contended that the overall length of the criminal proceedings against them had been excessive.

The court held that the finding of a violation constituted adequate just satisfaction in respect in any possible non-pecuniary prejudice sustained by the applicants. It further awarded €4,500 to Mr O’Neill for costs and expenses