(Commission) The claimants said that the procedures used to secure their convictions amounted to entrapment, and that UK criminal procedures did not give sufficient protection so as to provide a fair trial. One was arrested with heroin, and the other in the company of an undercover officer in possession of forged currency. Each was later convicted. The prosecution had applied for and been granted permission to withhold evidence.
Held: The court must examine the procedures in each case to make sure the defendants’ rights were protected. In a criminal system, it was essential that an adversarial equality of arms between prosecution and defence must be maintained. Whether it was necessary for particular items to be witheld was for the national courts to determine, and the instant court could only look at the procedure followed. Here the undisclosed evidence may have related to an undisclosed issue of fact relevant to the case was decided by the judge. The procedure failed to allow the defence the adversial opportunity to test evidence, and was unfair, and infringed the defendants’ rights. However the failures in these circumstances were not sufficient to justify an award of damages or otherwise.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
Citations:
Times 29-Jul-2003, 40461/98, 39647/98, [2003] ECHR 381, [2011] ECHR 2267
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights A-1
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Jasper v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
Grand Chamber – The defendants had been convicted after the prosecution had withheld evidence from them and from the judge under public interest immunity certificates. They complained that they had not had fair trials.
Held: The right was . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v H; Regina v C CACD 16-Oct-2003
The defendants were charged with serious drugs offences. The prosecutor had applied for public interest immunity certificates. The judge had required the appointment of independent counsel. The prosecutor appealed.
Held: The same district . .
Cited – Regina v H; Regina v C HL 5-Feb-2004
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only
The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications.
Commission opinion – Edwards and Lewis v United Kingdom ECHR 27-Oct-2004
E had been convicted of possession of heroin with intent to supply, and L of possession of counterfeit currency. In each case public interest certificates had been obtained to withold evidence from them. The judge had refused requests to exclude . .
Cited – Greenfield, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
The appellant had been charged with and disciplined for a prison offence. He was refused legal assistance at his hearing, and it was accepted that the proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of article 6 of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.185141
