Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Reporting restrictions upheld for adult defendants in sexual assault case due to prejudicial delay
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The Supreme Court has upheld a High Court decision to impose reporting restrictions on the identification of adult defendants in a sexual assault case, acknowledging a breach of their constitutional right to a trial with due expedition. The defendants, who were children at the time of the alleged offense but over 18 when charged, lost the protective statutory provisions designed for children, including the right to anonymity. The Supreme Court recognised the serious public interest in prosecuting the charges but found that the breach of duty by authorities, resulting in delayed charges, justified a remedy to mitigate the specific harm caused. The Court varied the High Court's order to allow for the possibility of lifting reporting restrictions under certain circumstances, aligning with the protections that would have been afforded under statute had the defendants been charged in a timely manner.
Supreme Court, sexual assault, constitutional right, trial with due expedition, reporting restrictions, Gilchrist order, Children Act 2001, anonymity, prejudicial delay, breach of duty, statutory provisions, rehabilitation, public interest, prosecution, Section 93, adult defendants, child offenders, inherent jurisdiction, due process.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
