The applicant had been convicted of murder. He complained to the European Commission of Human Rights that one of the prosecution witnesses had identified him when he was brought into a room where the witness was being questioned. For identification purposes he ought to have been placed in a room along with others of similar appearance. The Commission reminded itself that the task of the Convention organs when considering a complaint under article 6 was to ascertain whether the proceedings, considered as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken and submitted, were fair. The Commission noted that the applicant’s conviction was based on an assessment of a significant amount of corroborative circumstantial evidence; that the identification in question had not played any decisive role in the applicant’s conviction; that the applicant was assisted by counsel throughout the proceedings and that he had been able to question the witness in the proceedings before the domestic court. ‘Having assessed all elements of the domestic proceedings’, the Commission rejected the application as manifestly ill-founded.
Citations:
Unreported, 12 October 1994, 20593/92
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Holland v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Devolution) PC 11-May-2005
The defendant appealed his convictions for robbery. He had been subject to a dock identification, and he complained that the prosecution had failed in its duties of disclosure.
Held: The combination of several failings meant that the defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.225524
