208:
a trial judge to exclude admissions was a defence in this case. The court stated that "the public interest cannot be invoked to justify the use of answers compulsorily obtained in a non-judicial investigation to incriminate the accused during the trial proceedings" and "the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused." Saunders was awarded damages of £75,000, which was paid in June 1997.
163:, and provided that the answers to such questions would be admissible in court (unlike earlier acts (e.g. s.31 Theft Act 1968 or s.72 Supreme Court Act 1981) where the exclusion of the right to avoid self-incrimination was tied to a provision that the answers could not be used in evidence). Giving Saunders the option of either incriminating himself or "the court may punish the offender in like manner as if he had been guilty of
196:. Again the applicant argued that the use at trial of answers given to the DTI Inspectors rendered the proceedings unfair. The Court rejected this argument, deciding that Parliament had clearly provided in the 1985 Act that answers given to DTI Inspectors may be admitted in evidence even though such admittance might override the privilege against self-incrimination.
167:." Saunders did answer questions during nine interviews from February to June 1987 and his answers were presented during his trial in 1989-90; the role of this specific evidence in securing his conviction is not clear. The legality of the statements obtained under compulsion was challenged at the trial under sections 76 and 78 of the
228:
While the judgement appeared decisive the caveats reduced its impact on
English law as the majority of affected statutes do not contain any ambiguity over the treatment of information given under compulsory examination. Section 434 was amended in a Schedule to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence
207:
By a majority of 16-4 the ECtHR found that there was a breach of
Article 6. The court rejected the argument of the British government that the complexity of large fraud cases and the public interest in securing a conviction justified the compulsion; the court also rejected the argument that power of
216:, documents acquired pursuant to a warrant, breath, blood and urine samples and bodily tissue for the purpose of DNA testing." The court also stated that " whether the right not to incriminate oneself is absolute or whether infringements of it may be justified in particular circumstances."
211:
But this was tempered by: " does not extend to the use in criminal proceedings of material which may be obtained from the accused through the use of compulsory powers but which has an existence independent of the will of the suspect such as ,
327:
322:
132:
317:
192:) regarding the legality of the interviews; leave to appeal was refused by the House of Lords. In December 1994 the Home Secretary referred the case to the Court of Appeal under the
233:
was returned to the Court of
Appeals it was held that the wording of section 434 did not allow for the exclusion of evidence solely on the grounds it was obtained under compulsion (
225:, in that it found the prosecution's use of answers given by the defendant unfair, but that the use of documents obtained from the defendant by compulsion was acceptable.
160:
175:. During the later trial of his co-defendants the interviews were also subject to a challenge of abuse of process. None of these legal challenges succeeded.
237:(1996) 1 Cr. App. R. 463), it was confirmed that "Parliament's clear intention... must defeat Convention jurisprudence." Further in British law
168:
129:
121:
219:
One of the dissenting judges (Mr. S. K. Martens) pointed out that the court was, in effect, over-ruling the judgement made in
188:
The case went to the Court of Appeal where it was rejected on 16 May 1991, with the court referring to the earlier dismissal (
117:
266:
152:
125:
285:
Mirfield, Peter, 'Silence, Confessions and
Improperly Obtained Evidence', Clarendon Press Oxford, 1998; p. 308
193:
260:
242:
250:
89:
241:(2003) allowed the admission of answers obtained by compulsory questioning under section 172 of the
301:
156:
151:
was convicted on twelve of fifteen counts of conspiracy, false accounting and theft relating to
164:
159:, which made it an offence to refuse to answer questions posed by Inspectors appointed by the
17:
155:
that occurred in 1986. During the investigation, the police relied on section 434(5) of the
221:
148:
311:
44:
199:
Saunders had also appealed to the ECtHR, lodging his application on 20 July 1988.
297:
300:
as in force today (including any amendments) within the United
Kingdom, from
172:
248:
During the ECtHR's deliberations, the following case law was considered
328:
European Court of Human Rights cases involving the United
Kingdom
323:
European Court of Human Rights cases decided by the Grand
Chamber
245:, apparently in direct opposition to the ECtHR's ruling.
318:
Article 6 of the
European Convention on Human Rights
99:
79:
71:
63:
55:
43:
36:
31:
171:during two occasions when the court was held a
8:
278:
28:
169:Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
7:
130:European Convention on Human Rights
25:
37:Submitted 9 and 13 September 1994
161:Department of Trade and Industry
122:right against self-incrimination
298:Text of the Companies Act 1985
203:European Court of Human Rights
118:European Court of Human Rights
116:was a legal case heard by the
113:Saunders v. the United Kingdom
18:Saunders v. the United Kingdom
1:
267:John Murray v. United Kingdom
133:Article 6 paragraphs 1 and 2
344:
50:Saunders v. United Kingdom
104:
95:
84:
32:Saunders v United Kingdom
194:Criminal Appeal Act 1968
126:presumption of innocence
39:Decided 17 December 1996
261:Fayed v. United Kingdom
72:Nationality of parties
243:Road Traffic Act 1988
165:contempt of the court
128:as included in the
302:legislation.gov.uk
157:Companies Act 1985
80:Court composition
251:Deweer v. Belgium
109:
108:
16:(Redirected from
335:
286:
283:
29:
21:
343:
342:
338:
337:
336:
334:
333:
332:
308:
307:
294:
289:
284:
280:
276:
256:Funke v. France
229:Act 1999. When
222:Funke v. France
205:
186:
184:Court of Appeal
181:
149:Ernest Saunders
141:
90:Mr R. Bernhardt
88:
59:43/1994/490/572
38:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
341:
339:
331:
330:
325:
320:
310:
309:
306:
305:
293:
290:
288:
287:
277:
275:
272:
239:Brown v. Stott
204:
201:
185:
182:
180:
177:
145:R. v. Saunders
140:
137:
120:regarding the
107:
106:
102:
101:
97:
96:
93:
92:
82:
81:
77:
76:
75:United Kingdom
73:
69:
68:
65:
61:
60:
57:
53:
52:
47:
45:Full case name
41:
40:
34:
33:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
340:
329:
326:
324:
321:
319:
316:
315:
313:
303:
299:
296:
295:
291:
282:
279:
273:
271:
269:
268:
263:
262:
257:
253:
252:
246:
244:
240:
236:
235:R v. Saunders
232:
226:
224:
223:
217:
215:
209:
202:
200:
197:
195:
191:
183:
178:
176:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
153:share dealing
150:
146:
138:
136:
134:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
114:
103:
98:
94:
91:
87:
83:
78:
74:
70:
67:Grand chamber
66:
62:
58:
54:
51:
48:
46:
42:
35:
30:
27:
19:
281:
265:
259:
255:
249:
247:
238:
234:
230:
227:
220:
218:
213:
210:
206:
198:
190:R. v. Seelig
189:
187:
144:
142:
112:
111:
110:
85:
49:
26:
312:Categories
292:References
214:inter alia
105:Fair trial
173:voir dire
86:President
231:Saunders
179:Judgment
147:(1996),
124:and the
100:Keywords
64:Chamber
274:Notes
139:Facts
56:Case
143:In
314::
270:.
264:,
258:,
254:,
135:.
304:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.