R v Ibrahim [2012] EWCA Crim 837 – Article 6 ECHR – ss 114 -127 CJA 2003 – s 78 PACE.
1) ECtHR conclusion that combined “counterbalancing measures” of common law, s 78 of PACE and CJA 2003 are in principle sufficient for a fair trial where untested hearsay evidence is the “decisive” evidence against D.
2) where decision of ECtHR inconsistent with previous decision of House of Lords the Court of Appeal must follow the latter unless wholly exceptional circumstances - decision of Supreme Court in Horncastle therefore prevails.
3) ECtHR and Supreme Court agree that ultimately the single test is whether D had a fair trial.
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.