Saunders v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 313
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 [...]. 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.
Answer
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)
Tags
#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Saunders v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 313
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 [...]. 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.
Answer
?
Tags
#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Saunders v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 313
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 [...]. 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.
Answer
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)
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it 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 <span>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 a
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.