Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
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.
Answer
R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
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.
Answer
?

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
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.
Answer
R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In 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 w

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions


Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.