#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Condron v UK (2001) 31 EHRR 1

The applicants were two heroin addicts (husband and wife) in the process of withdrawal and had been advised by their solicitor not to answer the questions put to them by the police because, (unlike the police doctor), he believed that they were not fit to be interviewed. The case again illustrated the ECtHR's approach in this area, which is not to treat the right to silence as an absolute right, but to treat each case on its merits. On the facts, the ECtHR found that there had been a violation of their article 6 rights at their criminal trial. The trial judge, in accordance with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s 34, had directed the jury that inferences could be drawn from the applicants' refusal to comment at the police interview. This itself was not incompatible with the ECHR, art 6. However, the problem had been the trial judge's failure to direct that adverse inferences should only be drawn where the jury was satisfied that the refusal to comment could only be based on the defendants having no answer to the case put to them by the police or one which would not stand up to cross-examination.