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

R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14

The appellants argued before the Supreme Court that they had not received a fair trial when their convictions were based solely, or to a decisive extent, on the hearsay statements of witnesses who they had not had a chance to cross-examine. In light of the decision of the ECtHR in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v UK (2009) 49 EHRR 1, the appellants submitted that their convictions breached the ECHR, art 6(3)(d), which guarantees the right of an accused to cross-examine witnesses at a criminal trial, as well as the ECHR, art 6(1).The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 2(1) it was only required to take into account Strasbourg's jurisprudence, and in this particular case it declined to follow the Chamber's decision in Al-Khawaja (see section 9.2.1 on the Human Rights Act 1998, s 2(1)). The Supreme Court held that the admission of hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contained sufficient safeguards so that convictions based solely, or to a decisive extent, on such statements would not breach the Convention. In the instant case no breach of the ECHR, art 6 was found.