Each complainant said that in allowing hearsay evidence to be used against them at their trials, their article 6 human rights had been infringed. In the first case the complainant had died before trial but her statement was admitted.
Held: In each case, applying Luca, the trials infringed the right to a fair trial since the evidence of the witness at issue was decisive. It was not the case that the defendant was responsible for the absence of the witness in either case. The directions given could not outweight the damage caused.
[2009] ECHR 26766/05, [2009] ECHR 110, 26766/05, 22228/06
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6, Criminal Justice Act 1988 23 25, Criminal Justice Act 2003 116(2)(e)
Human Rights
Citing:
See Also – Al-Khawaja v The United Kingdom; Tahery v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Jan-2008
Each claimant complained of the admission at their trials of hearsay evidence. . .
Cited – Doorson v The Netherlands ECHR 26-Mar-1996
Evidence was given in criminal trials by anonymous witnesses and evidence was also read as a result of a witness having appeared at the trial but then absconded. The defendant was convicted of drug trafficking. As regards the anonymous witnesses, . .
Cited – Di Luca And Saluzzi v Italy ECHR 2-Sep-1997
ECHR Basic distinction in law of many member States of the Council of Europe between civil servants and employees governed by private law – Court has accordingly held that disputes relating to recruitment, . .
Cited – Krasniki v The Czech Republic ECHR 28-Feb-2006
. .
At Court of Appeal – Al-Khawaja v Regina CACD 3-Nov-2005
The defendant had been tried for indecent assaults. The complainant having died before the trial, the judge had ruled that her written statements were admissible. The defendant said he had not had a fair trial.
Held: The appeal failed. The . .
Distinguished – Sellick and Sellick, Regina v CACD 14-Mar-2005
The defendants appealed convictions for murder saying that the court had had read to it the statements of four witnesses who refused to attend for fear, having been intimidated. Other witnesses had been unco-operative and had been treated by the . .
Cited – Visser v The Netherlands ECHR 14-Feb-2002
The applicant alleged that in criminal proceedings against him, there was used in evidence a statement from an anonymous witness, and his defence rights had been unacceptably restricted in breach of Article 6. The police said that witnesses were . .
Cited – Unterpertinger v Austria ECHR 24-Nov-1986
The defendant was convicted of causing actual bodily harm, mainly on the basis of statements which his wife and daughter had given to the police. His wife and daughter took advantage of their right not to give evidence at his trial and so could not . .
Cited – Barbera, Messegua, and Jabardo v Spain ECHR 6-Dec-1988
ECHR The presumption of innocence would be violated if, without the accused having previously been proved guilty according to law, a judicial decision concerning him reflected an opinion that he was guilty. The . .
Cited – PS v Germany ECHR 20-Dec-2001
The applicant had been convicted of sexual abuse of a child. The evidence against him consisted of a statement made by the child’s mother about what her daughter had told her, and evidence by a police officer who had questioned the daughter shortly . .
Cited – Luca v Italy ECHR 27-Feb-2001
The accused had been convicted. After exercising his right to silence, there were read to the court accounts of statements made by co-accused but without an opportunity for him to cross examine the witnesses.
Held: Saunders had established the . .
Cited – Kostovski v The Netherlands ECHR 20-Nov-1989
No Anonymity for Witnessses in Criminal Trial
K was convicted of armed robbery on the basis of statements of anonymous witnesses. He was unable to question those witnesses at any stage. Being unaware of the identity of the witnesses deprived K of the very particulars which would have enabled . .
Cited by:
See Also – Al-Khawaja v The United Kingdom; Tahery v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Jan-2009
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment1 in the case of Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom (application nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06).
The Court held unanimously that in both cases there had . .
Cited – Horncastle and Others v Regina CACD 22-May-2009
Each defendant appealed on the basis that they had not had proper opportunity to cross examine prosecution witnesses whose evidence had been accepted by the court. In each case evidence had been hearsay. In two cases, the witness had died before . .
Cited – Horncastle and Others, Regina v SC 9-Dec-2009
Each defendant said they had not received a fair trial in that the court had admitted written evidence of a witness he had not been allowed to challenge. The witnesses had been victims, two of whom had died before trial. It was suggested that the . .
See Also – Al-Khawaja v The United Kingdom; Tahery v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Dec-2011
(Grand Chamber) The claimants complained of the use against them of hearsay evidence in their trials.
Held: ‘the underlying principle is that the defendant in a criminal trial should have an effective opportunity to challenge the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Evidence
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.374250