AM v United Kingdom: ECHR 2 Dec 1992

The applicant complained that at his trial in 1988 for the murder of two British soldiers in Befast, the judge had allowed the cameramen upon whose film evidence he had been convicted to be hidden from the view of the defendants. The court considered the admissibility of the claim.
Held: The case wa inadmissible: ‘The Commission recalls the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights that, in principle, all evidence must be adduced in the presence of the accused at a public hearing with a view to adversarial argument, but this does not mean that a statement from a witness must always be made in court and in public if it is to be admitted in evidence . . The defendant must be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question the witnesses against him. In the present case, the witnesses whose identity was not disclosed to the public or the accused, were present in court and could be seen by the judge and by the representatives of both prosecution and defence. The evidence itself concerned not the question of identification of the applicant (which evidence was given by police officers whose identity was not withheld), but merely the making of certain filmed and photographic evidence. It was accepted by the defence that the evidence did not implicate the applicant.’

20657/92, [1992] ECHR 84
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
Human Rights
CitedRegina v Socialist Worker Printers and Publishers Ltd, Ex parte Attorney-General CA 1974
In a blackmail case, the court ordered non publication of the names of the complainants. Thinking they were not bound, the defendants published the names.
Held: The publishers and Mr Michael Foot were held to be in contempt of court in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.442220