CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 septembre 2010

.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. 133 August-September 2010 Szypusz v. the United Kingdom - 8400/07 Judgment 21.9.2010 [Section IV] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Police officer responsible for operating video equipment permitted to remain alone with jury while it viewed important video evidence: no violation   Facts – The applicant was charged with attempted murder and making threats to kill. An important part of the prosecution case against him involved video recordings from closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras operating near the crime scene. A compilation of the CCTV footage was played a number of times during the trial on sophisticated digital equipment. The machine was operated by a detective constable who, as a member of the investigating team, was, formally speaking, a witness in the case. After retiring, the jury indicated that they wished to review the video evidence. The judge consulted counsel for the defendants, including junior counsel for the applicant, but they did not oppose the showing of the video recordings. The judge instructed the members of the jury not to communicate with the police officer who would be handling the video equipment other than for the purposes of asking him to play certain parts of the footage. The jury was left alone in the court room with the police officer for almost two hours. At that point leading counsel for the applicant sought to reconvene the court to protest against the jury being left alone with the police officer. The applicant was ultimately found guilty and sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. His appeal alleging bias on the part of the jury was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. Law – Article 6 § 1: Regardless of the extent of his actual role in the prosecution of the case, the police officer’s presence alone with the jury could have given rise to understandable misgivings on the part of the accused about the jury’s impartiality. However, after being selected to serve, the jurors had been required to swear an oath to the effect that they would faithfully try the applicant and give a true verdict according to the evidence presented in court. They had also been given clear instructions not to discuss the case with any outside person. In addition, when deciding to allow the jury to review the CCTV footage with the assistance of the police officer, the trial judge had emphasised to the jurors that the officer was only to operate the video machine and that there was to be no communication with him other than to request him to play certain parts of the footage. It was therefore the jury which had decided which parts of the footage it wished to view and the police officer had had no influence in that respect. Furthermore, although the jurors had also been instructed to bring any concerns regarding fellow jurors to the trial judge’s attention, none had expressed any concern following the viewing of the CCTV footage. Moreover, defence counsel for two of the defendants had expressly agreed to the viewing in the manner proposed and junior counsel for the applicant had not objected. Finally, although the Court of Appeal had suggested that the approach adopted in the applicant’s case was not to be followed in future cases, the Court considered that from time to time appellate courts were allowed to provide guidance to first-instance courts in order to avoid procedural flaws which, while not undermining the overall fairness of the trial, were undesirable. The fact that the course of action adopted in the applicant’s case had ultimately been criticised did not in itself suggest that his rights under Article   6 had been breached. In sum, there had been sufficient safeguards in place to exclude any objectively justified or legitimate doubts as to the impartiality of the jury. Conclusion : no violation (five votes to two).   © 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