CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 avril 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 63 April 2004 Shannon v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 67537/01 Decision 6.4.2004 [Section IV] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Admission in trial of evidence obtained with entrapment by a journalist: inadmissible The applicant is a former actor who starred in a popular television series. In 1997, a journalist working in a tabloid newspaper received a call from an informant stating that the applicant had been supplying drugs in ‘show business’ circles. The journalist arranged a meeting with the applicant to discuss an employment offer as a celebrity guest in a night-club in Dubai. For the meeting, which was recorded, the journalist posed as a sheikh and others from the newspaper staff posed as his entourage. During the conversation, the journalist said he required cocaine for a party and the applicant said he could supply it (as well as the cannabis requested by the sheik’s personal assistant). He subsequently made some telephone calls, including to his agent who stated that he had spoken to him in an excited manner about the sheikh wanting him to get some cocaine, and then went out to collect the drugs. Eleven days after the events, the journalist published a front page headline article based on the recorded material. A few days after the publication of the article, the police arrested the applicant and charged him with three drug offences. Before the trial began, the applicant applied for the exclusion of the evidence obtained by the journalist. The trial judge refused the request since the applicant had volunteered to supply the drugs without being subject to pressure. Further, even if he had been entrapped, that could not constitute a defence in English law. The applicant’s request during the trial that the journalist disclose the identity of his informant was also refused, as non-disclosure did not affect the fairness of the trial as a whole. The applicant was convicted and sentenced on two counts. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: It cannot be excluded that evidence obtained as a result of entrapment by a private individual may render proceedings unfair. However, in the instant case there were no reasons to question the assessment which had been made by the trial judge or the Court of Appeal that the evidence fell short of establishing actual entrapment, or that in any event, even if the applicant had been encouraged in a broad sense, he had readily applied himself to supplying the drugs. Moreover, the applicant had not at any stage, either in the domestic proceedings or in those before the Court, alleged that the evidence against him was not genuine or unreliable. In these circumstances, the admission of evidence had not resulted in any unfairness and there was no appearance of a violation of Article 6.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes