SC when aged 11 was charged with attempted robbery. He had previous convictions, and was committed to the crown court for trial. He applied to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process on account of limited intellectual capacity, and inability effectively to take part in a trial. It was not said that he was unfit to plead, but that a crown court trial would be a breach of his Article 6 Convention rights. He was tried and convicted; his appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) failed.
Held: SC’s Article 6 rights had been breached if he had been unable effectively to participate in his trial. The Court described ‘effective participation’ in a trial: ‘However, ‘effective participation’ in this context presupposes that the accused has a broad understanding of the nature of the trial process and of what is at stake for him or her, including the significance of any penalty which may be imposed. It means that he or she, if necessary with the assistance of, for example, an interpreter, lawyer, social worker or friend, should be able to understand the general thrust of what is said in court. The defendant should be able to follow what is said by the prosecution witness and, if represented, to explain to his own lawyers his version of events, point out any statements with which he disagrees and make them aware of any facts which should be put forward in his defence.’
Citations:
[2004] 40 EHRR 10
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Crown Prosecution Service v P; Director of Public Prosecutions v P Admn 27-Apr-2007
The prosecutor appealed a grant of a stay of a prosecution of the 13 year old defendant as an abuse of process. Reports had indicated that he was unfit to plead. The prosecution contended that, if the court thought P ought not to face trial by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.251548
