CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 février 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 138 February 2011 Judge v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 35863/10 Decision 8.2.2011 [Section IV] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Absence of requirement for jury to state reasons when delivering guilty verdict: inadmissible   Facts – The applicant was found guilty of a series of criminal offences by a jury. In accordance with normal practice in Scots law, the jury did not give reasons for their verdict. In his application to the European Court, the applicant complained, inter alia , that the jury’s failure to provide reasons had deprived him of a fair trial, contrary to Article   6 of the Convention. Law – Article 6: None of the features which had led the Grand Chamber to find a violation of Article   6 in Taxquet v. Belgium * were present in the Scottish system. On the contrary, in Scotland the jury’s verdict was not returned in isolation but was given in a framework which included addresses by the prosecution and the defence as well as the presiding judge’s charge to the jury. Scots law also ensured clear demarcation between the respective roles of the judge and jury: it was the duty of the judge to ensure the proceedings were conducted fairly and to explain the law as it applied in the case to the jury, and the duty of the jury to accept those directions and to determine all questions of fact. In addition, although the jury were “masters of the facts” it was the duty of the presiding judge to accede to a submission of no case to answer if he or she was satisfied that the evidence led by the prosecution was insufficient in law to justify the accused’s conviction. These were precisely the procedural safeguards contemplated by the Grand Chamber in Taxquet . Lastly, in contrast to the Belgian appeal provisions that had been considered in that case, the Court was also satisfied that the appeal rights available under Scots law would have been sufficient to remedy any improper verdict by the jury, as the Appeal Court enjoyed wide powers of review and could quash any conviction amounting to a miscarriage of justice and, in particular, which was logically inconsistent or lacking in rationality. In sum, there had, therefore, been sufficient safeguards in place for the applicant to understand why he was found guilty and no basis for his submission that the failure of the jury to given reasons had rendered his trial unfair. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded). The Court also declared inadmissible the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 §   1 in conjunction with Article 6 §   3   (d), and under Article 13. * Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no.   926/05, 16   November 2010, Information Note no.   135.   © 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