Horncastle and others v UK [2014] ECHR 1394 - Article 6 ECHR – ss 114 -127 CJA 2003 – s 78 PACE.
- admissibility of evidence primarily a matter for national law and courts.
- court’s task to assess whether proceedings as a whole were fair.
- article 6(3)(d) enshrines principle that D have opportunity to challenge witness against him.
- when evidence of absent witness is “sole or decisive” basis for conviction, sufficient counterbalancing factors are required.
- “decisive” means evidence so significance or important that likely to be determinative of the case.
- court must decide i) whether good reason for witnesses’ non-attendance; ii) whether witness statements “sole or decisive”; and, if so, iii) whether nonetheless adequate counterbalancing measures to protect D’s right to a fair trial.
- application of CJA 2003, PACE and common law may enable fair and proper assessment of reliability of absent witness’ statement.
undefined: unpaid
Related case digests
- R v Horncastle and others [2009] UKSC 14 – Article 6 ECHR – ss 114 -127 CJA 2003 – s 78 PACE.
- hearsay – whether conviction based “solely or to a decisive extent” on admission of evidence from absent witness infringes article 6 ECHR. 1) Strasburg jurisprudence – article 6 rights not respected when statement of absent witness “the sole or decisive basis” for conviction. But, see point 5). 2) admissibility of business records etc is based on likelihood of reliability. 3) special stipulations applicable to hearsay in ss 124, 125 and 126 CJA to ensure fairness. 4) principal safeguards protecting D from unfair prejudice in admission of hearsay. 5) “sole or decisive test” not applicable as CJA ensures that a trial must be fair.