|
''R v Horncastle & Others'' A panel of 7 judges sat in the case, including the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge and the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger.〔() UKSC 14〕 The court unanimously affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal and dismissed the appeals of several defendants who were convicted on the basis of statements of absent witnesses. The case can be viewed as a direct response to the European Court of Human Rights ruling in ''Al-Khawaja v United Kingdom'' (2009) 1 EHRR 49 in which the facts were legally very similar. In this case the ECtHR ruled against the state and found that while it was justifiable to allow hearsay evidence in some circumstances, it was likely never permissible for a conviction to be based solely or decisively on such evidence.〔(2009) 49 EHRR 1 (), quoting ''Doorson v Netherlands'' (1996) 22 EHRR 330 ()〕 Al-Khawaja has been appealed by the United Kingdom and the decision by the Grand Chamber (a larger panel of judges which did not overturn the initial decision) is available.〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/The+Court/The+Court/The+Grand+Chamber/ )〕 The Lords in Horncastle do not look favourably upon the decision of the Grand Chamber stating "that although the domestic court was required to take account of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in applying principles which were clearly established, where, on rare occasions, the domestic court was concerned that the European court's decision insufficiently appreciated or accommodated particular aspects of the domestic process, it might decline to follow the decision". ==Background== Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees a fair trial to anybody charged with a criminal offence. As a subset of this general right, accused persons are entitled to benefit from a number of "minimum rights", one of which under Article 6(3)(d) is the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm )〕 Previous cases in the European Court of Human Rights such as Lucà v Italy〔(2003) 36 EHRR 46〕 and Kostovski v Netherlands〔(1990) 12 EHRR 434〕 concerned trials in which either the testimony of anonymous witnesses or witness statements made by witnesses who were not called in court were accepted as evidence. The European Court accepted that while allowing this sort of evidence did ''prima facie'' breach a defendants rights under Article 6(3)(d), this was acceptable so long as sufficient counterbalances were present.〔(1990) 12 EHRR 434 at (), (2009) 49 EHRR 1 (), (1996) 22 EHRR 330 ()〕 The court maintained the caveat that although this sort of evidence was normally acceptable, it was never appropriate for a conviction to be based solely or decisively on this sort of untested evidence. In Al-Khawaja v United Kingdom (2009) 49 EHRR 1, two applications to the ECtHR were made by men who had been convicted on criminal charges on the basis of untested hearsay statements. In one case a defendant was convicted of indecent assault on the basis of the statement of a woman who had subsequently committed suicide, in the other a defendant was convicted of wounding with intent (contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861) on the basis of a statement made by the victim, who had been unwilling to testify in court. The ECtHR found that in both cases the state was in breach of Article 6 by allowing convictions to be based "solely or decisively" on hearsay evidence.〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R v Horncastle」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|