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
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised 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.