CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 août 2001

.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 33 August 2001 Allan v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 48539/99 Decision 28.8.2001 [Section III] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Use in evidence against accused of tape and video recordings made covertly: admissible Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Tape and video recordings made without the knowledge of an accused: admissible Article 35 Article 35-1 Six-month period Running of six months time-limit interrupted only when complaints first submitted to the Court The applicant and another man were arrested on suspicion of having committed a robbery. The applicant’s co-accused admitted the offence as well as other similar robberies,while the applicant denied any involvement. The police suspected the applicant and his co-accused of having committed a murder on the occasion of a robbery. They were remanded in custody. With authority granted by the Chief Constable, their cell and visit areas were bugged with audio and video devices; similar authority was obtained for the police station where the applicant was later held. The visits of a friend of the applicant were recorded and a cell-mate was fitted with recording devices by the police to elicit evidence from the applicant. He gave murder scene; the purported admission was not part of the recordings made and was discussed at the trial. The recorded conversations were adduced in evidence at the trial, the applicant’s counsel having unsuccessfully challenged the admissibility in evidence of extracts from the covert tape and video recordings. The judge directed the jury on the possible drawing of inferences from the applicant’s silence in police interviews. He was eventually convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. His requests for leave to appeal were turned down. Admissible under Articles 6 § 1 (use of surveillance recordings in evidence), 8 and 13. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 (right to remain silence): The running of the six month time-limit imposed by Article 35 § 1 is, as a general rule, interrupted by the first letter from the applicant indicating an intention to lodge an application and giving some indication of the nature of the complaints made. As regards complaints not included in the initial application, the running of the six month time-limit is not interrupted until the date when the complaints are first submitted to the Court. The issue concerning the adverse inference drawn by the jury from the applicant’s silence was only raised in a letter of 18 September 2000. If the applicant’s solicitors had invoked the issue of fairness of the proceedings in an earlier letter, they had narrowed it down to the use of covert recordings and the evidence of an informant. The issue regarding the applicant’s right to silence could not be regarded as so closely connected to the other complaints raised under Article 6 that it could not be examined separately. The final decision in the process of exhaustion of remedies in relation to this complaint being the Court of Appeal judgment of 18 January 1999, this part of the application was therefore introduced out of time.   © 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