Presentation - Animal Activists

8/12/2019 Presentation - Animal Activists

1/30

RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL VIS--VIS ADMISSIBILITY OF

EVIDENCE


2/30

Outline

1. Article 6 1

2. Quick facts of theAnimal Activists

case3. Statement of the

issues

4. Review of therelevant case law

5. Applicability to theAnimal Activists

case


3/30

Article 6 1

1. In the determination of his civil rights andobligations or of any criminal charge againsthim, everyone is entitled to a fair and publichearing within a reasonable time by anindependent and impartial tribunal established

by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publiclyby the press and public may be excluded fromall or part of the trial in the interest of morals,public order or national security in a democraticsociety, where the interests of juveniles or the

protection of the private life of the parties sorequire, or the extent strictly necessary in theopinion of the court in special circumstanceswhere publicity would prejudice the interests of

justice.


4/30

QUICK FACTS


5/30

Quick facts

Steve was arrested on suspicion ofinvolvement in an assault (monthsago) in McDonalds claimed by

Animality is the Best Policy Secret search: leaflets and newspaper

clippings

Letter out of the post-box of Stevesgirlfriend

Police officer posed as fellow detaineewhere Steven was held; wins Stevestrust


6/30

Quick facts (2/2)

During interrogation, Steve more orless confesses

He was summoned to appear before a

3-judge section He retracts confession His counsel pleads to bar the

prosecution and invokes unlawfulcollection of evidence


7/30

STATEMENT OF ISSUES


8/30

Statement of the Issues

1. Whether or not the police violatedSteves right to remain silent andright against self-incrimination?

2. Whether or not evidence obtained bythe police is admissible?

3. Whether or not Stevesright to a fair

trial under Article 6 1 has beenviolated?


9/30

RELEVANT CASE LAW


10/30

Relevant Case Law

Schenk v. Switzerland Teixera de Castro v. Portugal Khan v. UK PG and JH v. UKAllan v. UK Harutyunyan v. Armenia Ramamanauskas v. Lithuania


11/30

1. Schenk v. Switzerland

Schenk was charged of attemptedmurder

He contracted someone to kill his wife;

hired gun told his wife about it Hired gun recorded his conversation

with Schenk and police used it as

evidence Schenk questioned admissibility of

evidence

He was found guilty of the charges


12/30

Schenk case (Continued)

Whether the use of illegally obtainedobtained evidence rendered the trialunfair?Answer: no

Ratio decidendi of the Court?Schenks rights as an accused were

not disregarded; evidence obtainednot in accordance with law


13/30


14/30

Whether or not there was a violation ofArticle 6 1? YES. Ratio decidendi?

Police officers instigated the offense They didnt investigate the criminal

activity in an essentially passive manner


15/30

3. Khan v. UK

Khan and his cousin were stoppedand seized in the airport by customsofficials

Cousin arrested for possession Khan visited B who was suspected of

drug dealing Prior to visit, authorization was given

to install covert listening devicesAdmission of Khan was recorded; he

was arrested and later convicted


16/30

Whether or not evidence obtained inbreach of Article 8 rendered Khans

trial unfair? NO. Ratio decidendi?

Followed the Schenk doctrine

In accordance with law


17/30

4. PG and JH v. UK

Previously discussed in Article 8cases

To recall, covert listening devices were

installed in Bs flat to recordconversations of its visitors andinhabitants

Covert listening devices were also

installed to the police officers whointerviewed applicants

Applicants questioned admissibility

and overall fairness of proceedings


18/30

Applied the doctrines of Schenk andKhan

Taped recordings not the only pieces

of evidenceAmple opportunity to challengeAs to alleged underhand way of

obtaining their voices, not covered bythe right against self-incrimination(objective specimen for forensic

analysis)


19/30

5. Allan v. UKApplicant was arrested for suspicion ofmurdering a store manager While detained, audio video surveillance

devices were installedA police informant was placed in samecell as Allans: earned trust, persistent,

heavily coached by police During interrogation, police rattled Allan

causing him to confide to informant By reason of statements he gave to H,

case was built against Allan and he wasconvicted


20/30

Whether or not there was breach ofArticle 6 1? Recorded conversations with fellow inmates,

girlfriends, police officersNO.

How police implanted informant into AllanscellYES. Ratio decidendi?

Ample opportunity to challenge

Voluntariness of confession/admission Quality of evidence used Not automatically unfair where evidence

obtained is unsupported by other evidence


21/30

6. Harutyunyan v. Armenia

Military officer charged with murder offellow serviceman in post

He and two fellow servicemen werearrested and tortured to get confession

Two fellow servicemen made statementimplicating Harutyunyan in the murder;latter later made confession

He was convicted for premeditatedmurder Military police officers later convicted for

grave abuse of power


22/30

Whether or not there is violation ofArticle 6 1? Yes Ratio decidendi? Any evidence

obtained in violation of Article 3 incriminal proceedings should not berelied on as proof of accuseds guilt

regardless of probative value


23/30

Ramanauskas v. Lithuania

Ramanauskas worked as a prosecutor He was approached by AZ, who

unbeknownst to former was a member

of the anti-corruption police unitAZ wanted Ramanauskas to fix

acquittal of someone in exchange for

money Ramanauskas eventually agreed Ramanauskas was convicted for

acceptance of bribe


24/30

Whether or not there was violation ofArticle 6 1? YES. Ratio decidendi

Investigatedcriminal activity in a passivemanner?

Effective means to use opportunity to

challenge?


25/30

LESSONS


26/30

Lessons from the cases

1. The right to fair trial doesnt prescriberules of evidence2. National law should provide own rules3. Court will not look into admissibility of

evidence or review how the nationalcourts treated the evidence presentedbefore it

4. Question of whether proceedings as a

whole were fair5. Right to fair trial not automaticallyviolated with use of illegally obtainedevidence


27/30

Lessons (2/2)

5. Right not automatically violated if theresample opportunity to effectively challenge

6. Right not automatically violated if theresquality of evidence

7. Right not automatically violated if evidenceis not supported by other evidence isreliable and very strong

8. Right not automatically violated if right to

remain silent is breached9. Evidence obtained through violations of

Article 3, duress, inducement, etc. renderthe trial unfair


28/30

APPLICATION


29/30

Pieces of evidence have Article 8and 6 1 considerations Re: letter, recordings, leaflets no

violation of Steves right to fair trialjust yet Ample opportunity to effectively

challenge authenticity and admissibility

Statements were made to girlfriendvoluntarily; not made under duress,incitement

Quality of evidence: reliable and strong?


30/30

However, there is breach of Article 6 1 with respect to confession andstatements given to police who posedas fellow detainee Confession made under inducement or

probably even duress Information gained by police may be

regarded as having been obtained indefiance of the will of the applicant and itspossible use at trial might trample onSteves right to silence and privilegeagainst self-incrimination

Documents

Presentation - Animal Activists