Introduction

The case of Spence and Steele v His Majesty's Advocate (HMA), adjudicated by the Scottish High Court of Justiciary on March 26, 2024, marks a significant moment in Scottish jurisprudence concerning the standards of fair trials in remote proceedings and the handling of identification evidence. The appellants, Lewis Spence and Connor Steele, were convicted of the attempted murder of Peter Martin following a violent attack captured partially on CCTV and dashcam footage. Their appeals against conviction and, in Spence's case, against the sentence imposed, raised critical questions about the integrity of the identification process and the implications of conducting trials remotely.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court of Justiciary, led by Lady Dorrian, the Lord Justice Clerk, delivered the opinion affirming the convictions of both appellants. Spence and Steele were found guilty of attempting to murder Peter Martin through a series of violent assaults using weapons, resulting in severe injuries to the victim. The appellants challenged their convictions primarily on the grounds of alleged procedural unfairness, particularly concerning the identification of the perpetrators and the remote nature of the trial proceedings.

In their appeals, Spence contested the length of his sentence, specifically the imposition of an extension period, deeming it excessive. The court meticulously examined the conduct of the Advocate Depute (prosecutor), the sufficiency of identification evidence, and the impact of remote trial procedures on the fairness of the trial. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeals, upholding both the convictions and the sentences imposed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that shaped the court's reasoning:

• Gubinas v HM Advocate [2018] JC 45: This case underscored the necessity for clear evidence in establishing fair trial standards, particularly concerning identification processes.
• Wishart v HM Advocate [2022] JC 259: Emphasized the right of the jury to see the accused to make informed comparisons against identification evidence.
• KP v HM Advocate [2018] J.C. 33: Established the high threshold required to demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct that compromises the fairness of a trial.

These precedents collectively reinforce the principles that protect the integrity of the judicial process, ensuring that convictions are based on reliable evidence and that the components of a fair trial are meticulously upheld.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on several critical aspects:

• Identification Evidence: The appellants contested the reliability of their identification through CCTV and eyewitness testimonies, arguing that the remote trial setup hindered accurate comparisons. The court evaluated the strength of the identification process, considering factors such as the clarity of footage and corroborative evidence from police officers.
• Remote Trial Procedures: Conducted with the jury situated in a cinema and linked electronically to the courtroom, the trial's remote nature was scrutinized. The appellants claimed that this setup impeded the jury's ability to assess the credibility of the accused effectively. The court assessed whether the remote proceedings met the standards required for a fair trial.
• Advocate Depute's Conduct: The appellants alleged that the prosecutor's (Advocate Depute's) conduct was prejudicial, potentially undermining the defense. The court examined the nature of the criticisms and the extent to which they influenced the fairness of the trial.

Ultimately, the court found that the identification evidence was sufficiently robust and that the remote trial procedures did not compromise the jury's ability to deliver a fair verdict. Additionally, the alleged prosecutorial misconduct did not meet the high threshold required to deem the trial unfair.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for future cases involving remote trials and identification evidence:

• Remote Trials: Affirming that remote trial procedures can uphold fair trial standards, provided they are executed with appropriate measures to ensure visibility and accessibility of evidence.
• Identification Evidence: Reinforces the importance of corroborative identification evidence and the robustness of traditional identification methods, even in a remote trial setup.
• Prosecutorial Conduct: Clarifies the high threshold required to successfully challenge the integrity and competence of prosecution based on trial conduct, discouraging frivolous or unfounded appeals on such grounds.

Lawyers and judges will refer to this judgment when dealing with appeals that question trial fairness, especially in contexts where technology-mediated proceedings are employed.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Extended Sentence: In Scottish law, an extended sentence comprises a custodial term plus an additional extension period, during which post-release supervision is necessary. This aims to protect the public from individuals deemed to pose a continued risk.

Identification Evidence: Refers to methods used to confirm the identity of individuals involved in a crime, including eyewitness testimony, CCTV footage, and other forms of surveillance. The reliability of such evidence is crucial for just convictions.

Advocate Depute: The title given to a prosecutor in the Scottish legal system. They represent the Crown in criminal proceedings, responsible for presenting evidence against the accused.

Remote Trial: A trial conducted with some or all parties participating via electronic means, such as video conferencing. This setup became more prevalent during the COVID-19 pandemic and involves specific protocols to maintain trial integrity.

Conclusion

The High Court of Justiciary's decision in Spence and Steele v HMA reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to upholding fair trial standards, even within the evolving landscape of remote legal proceedings. By meticulously examining the reliability of identification evidence and the procedural conduct of the prosecution, the court has set a clear precedent that emphasizes the importance of evidence integrity and prosecutorial competence.

Furthermore, the affirmation of the convictions and the judicious maintenance of the extended sentence highlight the court's role in balancing public protection with individual rights. This judgment serves as a guiding beacon for future cases, ensuring that technological advancements in the courtroom do not compromise the foundational principles of justice.