cs W was convicted of burglary on the evidence of a mother and daughter, who gave statements without their identity being revealed.
Held: The court recited various principles in the following terms:- ‘All the evidence must in principle be produced in the presence of the accused at a public hearing with a view to adversarial argument. However, the use as evidence of statements obtained at the pre-trial stage is not always inconsistent with paragraph (3)(d)(i) of Article 6, provided the right to the defence had been respected. As a rule, these rights require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when he was making a statement or at a later stage of the proceedings.’ However:- ‘Being unaware of their identity, the defence was confronted with an almost insurmountable handicap: it was deprived of the necessary information permitting it to test the witnesses’ reliability or cast doubt on their credibility.’ The court recognised the interests of the two women and the interests and importance of the collaboration of the public in the police’s struggle against crime, but referred to the right to the fair administration of justice holding ‘so prominent a place in a democratic society that it cannot be sacrificed.’ The court stressed that the identification made by the two anonymous witnesses was ‘the only evidence indicating the applicant’s presence on the scene of the crime.’ In the result the court held that the trial court relied ‘to a large extent’ on this evidence. It held there had been a breach of Article 6.
[1990] ECHR 23, 12489/86, (1990) 13 EHRR 281
Worldlii, Bailii
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Sellick and Sellick, Regina v CACD 14-Mar-2005
The defendants appealed convictions for murder saying that the court had had read to it the statements of four witnesses who refused to attend for fear, having been intimidated. Other witnesses had been unco-operative and had been treated by the . .
Cited – Regina v Davis (Iain); Regina v Ellis, Regina v Gregory, Regina v Simms, Regina v Martin CACD 19-May-2006
The several defendants complained at the use at their trials of evidence given anonymously. The perceived need for anonymity arose because, from intimidation, the witnesses would not be willing to give their evidence without it.
Held: The . .
See Also – Windisch v Austria ECHR 28-Jun-1993
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Evidence
Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.165076