The appeals concerned convictions from 1990 which had been challenged before, and following decisions in the European Court of Human Rights. It was alleged that certain information had been known to the prosecution, but not disclosed to them. The case concerned arrangements to boost share prices in connection with promoting a company take over. The appellants claimed that the Human Rights Act should be used retrospectively, invalidating the use of evidence obtained under compulsion.
Held: The recent decision in Kansal disallowed such retrospectivity. The Acts of the prosecution were lawful at the time. It was said that by current standards of fairness under common law the trials were unfair. Common law developments were retrospective. Again, the acts complained of were explicitly lawful at the time under statute, and not to be compared with unlawful withholding of evidence. The ruling of the European Court of Human Rights was sufficient in itself for the appellants, and did not require the overturning of the convictions. The primacy of Parliament and the provisions of s434 are fatal to the appellants contentions. Allegations about jury tampering were insufficiently established,
Judges:
The Vice President, (Lord Justice Rose), Mr Justice Tomlinson, And, Sir Humphrey Potts
Citations:
Times 01-Feb-2002, [2001] EWCA Crim 2860
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Regina v Lyons, Parnes, Ronson, Saunders HL 15-Nov-2002
The defendants had been convicted on evidence obtained from them by inspectors with statutory powers to require answers on pain of conviction. Subsequently the law changed to find such activity an infringement of a defendant’s human rights.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.167211