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

Facts: Ernest Saunder, the former Chief Executive of Guinness plc, was investigated by Inspectors from the then Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in relation to allegations of misconduct relating to Guinness’s proposed takeover of another company. The evidence obtained in this investigation was subsequently used as part of the prosecution case against Saunders when he was subsequently tried and convicted of offences relating to false accounting, conspiracy and theft. He later took his case to Strasbourg alleging that he had been obliged to incriminate himself, and that use at his trial of statements he had had to make to the DTI inspectors under their compulsory powers deprived him of a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6(1). The key point to take from Saunders is that it was the use of the statements, which he had earlier been obliged to make to the DTI inspectors, as evidence in the criminal trial which prompted the Strasbourg court to declare a breach of Article 6(1). The statements had been adduced in a way that suggested that Saunders had been dishonest, and that was sufficient to have tainted the legal process, whether or not the statements had actually contained an admission of guilt. Significantly, the court did recognise that use of such evidence could be justified in some circumstances and so a proportionality test was applied. However, in this particular case, the UK Government’s argument that such a practice was justified in the fight against corporate fraud was not ultimately persuasive.

Saunders v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 313