CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 décembre 2000

.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 25 December 2000 Heaney & McGuinness v. Ireland - 34720/97 Judgment 21.12.2000 [Section IV] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Self-incrimination – conviction for refusing to answer questions asked by the police: violation [This summary also covers the judgment of the case Quinn v. Ireland , no. 36887/97, 21 December 2000.] Facts : The three applicants were arrested on suspicion of serious terrorist offences. After having been cautioned by police officers that they had the right to remain silent, they were requested under Section 52 of the Offences Against the State Act 1939 to give details about their movements at the time of the relevant offences. However, they refused to answer any questions and each was convicted of failing to account for his movements and sentenced to 6   months’ imprisonment; the applicants in the first case were also charged with membership of an illegal paramilitary organisation but were later acquitted of that offence. Their challenge to the constitutionality of Section 52 was rejected by the Supreme Court but their appeals against their convictions were adjourned pending the outcome of their applications. Law : Article 6 § 1 and § 2 – The applicants were "charged" for the purposes of Article 6 although they had not been formally charged when the Section 52 requests were made. Heaney and McGuinness were acquitted of the substantive offence and no proceedings were issued against Quinn in respect of the offence of which he had originally been arrested. In general, an acquittal or lack of proceedings preclude an applicant from claiming to be a victim of a violation of the procedural guarantees of Article 6. However, the Court has previously found violations of Article 6 § 2 in spite of the absence of a conviction and if the present applicants are unable to invoke Article 6, their acquittal or the lack of substantive proceedings would preclude any consideration under Article 6 of their complaints that they were punished prior to that acquittal for remaining silent. In these circumstances, they can invoke paragraphs   1 and 2 of Article 6 in respect of their conviction and imprisonment under Section   52. The safeguards referred to by the Government could not effectively and sufficiently reduce the degree of compulsion imposed by Section 52 to the extent that the essence of the rights at issue would not be impaired, since the choice between providing the information or facing imprisonment remained. Moreover, the legal position as to the admissibility in evidence of any answers given was particularly uncertain at the time, and indeed the applicants were initially given the standard caution. The degree of compulsion imposed by the application of Section 52 in effect destroyed the very essence of the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to remain silent. The security and public order concerns invoked by the Government cannot justify a provision which has this effect and there has therefore been a violation of the applicants’ right to remain silent and their right not to incriminate themselves guaranteed by Article   6 § 1. Moreover, given the close link with the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 § 2, there has also been a violation of that provision. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Articles 8 and 10 – The Court considered that no separate issue arose under these provisions. Conclusion : no separate issue (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded each of the applicants IR£4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and also made an award in respect of costs and expenses. [ NB :   These cases establish a further exception to the principle that an applicant who has been acquitted or against whom no criminal proceedings have been pursued cannot claim to be a victim of a violation of the procedural guarantees 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