Press Releases & Updates 2000

Lord Prosser did not permit Advocate Aidan O’Neill QC to develop his argument that Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights applied to the Reference, and that the respondents as a result had a right to a fair process in which they had reasonable notice of the arguments that the Crown would bring and to a reasonable opportunity to present their case under conditions that did not place them at a disadvantage.

The Court has also upheld Lord Rodger’s refusal to allow the Reference proceedings to be recorded on tape. The preliminary hearing also gave no satisfactory or clear indication of how the proceedings will be conducted.

There was one crumb of comfort for the respondents. In connection with the Crown’s refusal to amend the questions in the Reference, which the respondents regard as slanted and based on a flawed understanding of the original trial, he said: "When the Court has not got the questions which satisfy respondents the Court can be liberally minded about what can be discussed."

A Trident Ploughshares spokesperson said:

"We were encouraged by the second preliminary hearing but today’s performance by the bench does make us wonder whether the High Court is up to the challenge. In spite of his statement last time around that he would not dodge the issues, Prosser dodged a few today. By refusing a tape recording and transcript the judges seem to be happy with a hole-in-corner affair and either don’t appreciate or are deliberately ignoring the global significance of this process. Scotland deserves a decent High Court that has the professionalism and courage to take Trident on."

Printer friendly version

Home | Top