Introduction

The case of Daniel Alexander Robertson versus His Majesty's Advocate presents critical questions regarding the procedural fairness in trials involving vulnerable defendants. Convicted on charges of rape against two complainers, MM and AF, Robertson appealed his conviction on the grounds that the trial judge improperly handled his vulnerability, thereby affecting the trial's fairness. The Scottish High Court of Justiciary's decision in [2024] HCJAC 45 delves into the responsibilities of the judiciary and legal representatives in accommodating defendants with vulnerabilities.

Summary of the Judgment

On 25 January 2024, Daniel Alexander Robertson was convicted of rape and sentenced to seven years imprisonment. The core of his appeal centered on the assertion that the trial judge failed to recognize his vulnerable state, particularly during cross-examination, which could have led to adverse inferences about his credibility. Robertson contended that multiple adjournments should have been granted to allow him to compose himself and effectively participate in his defense.

The court meticulously reviewed the trial's proceedings, examining the interactions between Robertson, his solicitor advocate, and the judge. It highlighted the procedural delays, the handling of Vulnerable Witness Applications (VWAs), and the late involvement of a new legal representative. Despite acknowledging Robertson's vulnerabilities, the court ultimately held that the trial judge acted within her discretion, ensuring the trial's efficiency and adherence to legal standards. Consequently, the appeal was refused.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that shape the court's approach to trial fairness and the treatment of vulnerable defendants:

• Stuurman v HM Advocate (1980): Established foundational principles regarding the handling of defendants' vulnerabilities.
• SG v HM Advocate (2020): Emphasized the importance of recognizing and accommodating vulnerabilities to ensure fair trials.
• Helow v Advocate General (2009): Addressed the balance between trial efficiency and the need for reasonable accommodations.
• Spence v HM Advocate (2024): Examined the procedural aspects of handling vulnerable individuals within the courtroom setting.
• HM Advocate v RV (2017): Highlighted that deserting a trial is an extraordinary remedy, to be used only in cases of irretrievable unfairness.
• Fraser v HM Advocate (2014): Reinforced the judiciary's discretion in assessing claims of unfairness and determining appropriate remedies.

These precedents collectively underscore the judiciary's obligation to balance the rights of the defendant with the need for efficient and orderly trial proceedings.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on several pivotal points:

• Judicial Discretion: The trial judge exercised her discretion in managing delays and adjournments, ensuring the trial progressed efficiently while providing Robertson with necessary breaks.
• Assessment of Fitness: Despite Robertson’s initial concerns regarding fitness for trial, expert reports concluded that he was fit, albeit with low intellectual capacity, necessitating accommodations like simple language and regular breaks.
• Solicitor Advocate’s Conduct: The court scrutinized the conduct of Robertson's solicitor advocate, noting instances where misleading objections and improper interruptions may have affected the trial's fairness.
• Application of Special Measures: The absence of applications for special measures, as outlined in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, was noted. The court emphasized that such measures must be proactively sought to aid vulnerable defendants.
• Deserting a Trial: Citing HM Advocate v RV (2017), the court reiterated that deserting a trial is a remedy of last resort, applicable only in situations of manifest and irretrievable unfairness.

The court concluded that while Robertson exhibited vulnerability, the judge appropriately balanced this with the trial's integrity, refusing to desert the diet as the issues raised did not reach the threshold of irretrievable unfairness.

Impact

This judgment sets significant precedents for future cases involving vulnerable defendants:

• Clarification on Judicial Discretion: Reinforces the judiciary's expansive discretion in managing trials involving vulnerabilities, provided that procedural fairness is maintained.
• Emphasis on Legal Representation: Highlights the critical role of solicitors and advocates in recognizing and appropriately addressing the vulnerabilities of their clients.
• Procedural Efficiency: Underscores the necessity of maintaining trial efficiency, discouraging repeated adjournments unless exceptionally warranted.
• Special Measures Application: May prompt more proactive utilization of special measures to support vulnerable defendants, ensuring their effective participation in trials.

Overall, the decision fortifies the standards for handling vulnerable defendants, balancing their rights with the judiciary's imperative to conduct efficient and fair trials.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Deserting the Trial Diet

Deserting the trial diet refers to the judge's decision to abandon the trial proceedings prematurely. It is considered an extreme measure, typically reserved for situations where continuing the trial would result in significant unfairness that cannot be remedied by any other means.

Vulnerable Witness Applications (VWA)

VWAs are legal mechanisms that allow for accommodations to be made for witnesses (or defendants) who may be vulnerable due to factors like age, disability, or psychological conditions. These accommodations can include testimony via live link, provision of support persons, or modifications in the manner of questioning.

Section 259 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995

This section allows for the inclusion of prior statements made by a witness to the police in addition to their courtroom testimony, under specific circumstances. It aims to provide a fuller picture of the events by incorporating consistent statements.

Special Measures

Special measures are provisions designed to support vulnerable defendants or witnesses during trials. These can include recorded statements, the presence of intermediaries, or modified questioning techniques to ensure clarity and fairness in testimony.

Conclusion

The High Court of Justiciary's ruling in [2024] HCJAC 45 serves as a pivotal reference point in the discourse surrounding the treatment of vulnerable defendants within the Scottish legal system. By meticulously balancing the defendant's vulnerabilities with the necessity for procedural integrity and efficiency, the court reaffirmed the principles that govern fair trials. The judgment emphasizes that while accommodating vulnerabilities is paramount, the mechanisms for doing so must be proactively and appropriately utilized by legal representatives and might necessitate judicial intervention only in instances of profound and unrectifiable unfairness.

Ultimately, this decision reinforces the necessity for defendants and their counsel to proactively seek and utilize special measures and for judges to judiciously employ their discretion to maintain the delicate balance between individual rights and the broader interests of justice.