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 evidence of undercover officers.
Held: The defendants had been denied fair trials after being incited to commit offences by agents provocateurs. The procedures adopted by the courts in excluding evidence was also unfair.


39647/98, 40461/98, Times 03-Nov-2004, [2004] ECHR 560


Worldlii, Bailii


European Convention on Human Rights 6


Commission opinionEdwards and Lewis v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Jul-2003
(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 . .

Cited by:

CitedGreenfield, 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 . .
CitedRegina v Lewis CACD 6-Apr-2005
The defendant had been convicted under the 1981 Act. The European Court of Human Rights had found that police officers had infringed his human rights by their entrapment of him into offering them counterfeit currency. He now appealed his conviction. . .
CitedSinclair v Her Majesty’s Advocate PC 11-May-2005
(Devolution) The defendant complained that the prosecutor had failed to disclose all the witness statements taken, which hid inconsistencies in their versions of events.
Held: The appeal was allowed. It was fundamental to a fair trial that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219432