CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 19 décembre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     971   19.12.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE C. G. v. UNITED KINGDOM   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a Chamber judgment in the case C. G. v. the United Kingdom (no. 43373/98); it is not final [1] .   No violation Article 6 § 1 Mrs C.G., a British national, who was born in 1970 and lives in the north of England, was charged with theft of approximately 2,900 pounds sterling (GBP) from her place of employment. She pleaded not guilty and, in April 1997, following a three-day trial in a Crown Court before a judge and jury, she was convicted and sentenced to two years’ probation and 100 hours’ community service.   She appealed against conviction on the grounds, among other things, that the judge had persistently interrupted and hectored her defence counsel throughout the trial, and made a defective summing up to the jury, thus depriving her of a fair trial. In particular, she submitted that during her counsel’s cross-examination of the main prosecution witness, S., the judge intervened so frequently that her counsel was prevented from testing the accuracy of a schedule of banking payments prepared by that witness, which was the basis of the prosecution case, and was thus barred from developing possible lines of defence. She also complained that the judge had constantly interrupted her examination-in-chief, making it impossible for her to give her evidence to the jury in a coherent manner, and had hectored her counsel to such an extent that he had had to curtail the examination. In February 1998 the Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal on the ground that, although there was “some substance” to her allegations of misconduct by the trial judge, this did not mean that her conviction was “unsafe” for the purposes of the relevant statutory test.   Mrs C.G. complained, under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, that she had been deprived of a fair trial.   The European Court of Human Rights observed that, although the evidence given by S. and the applicant, during the course of which the interventions had occurred, was doubtless the most important oral evidence given in the trial, it made up only a part of the trial proceedings. Further, while certain of the trial judge’s interventions were found by the Court of Appeal to be without justification, others were found to be justified. While the Court accepted the Court of Appeal’s assessment that the applicant’s counsel was disconcerted by the interruptions, it also agreed with the Court of Appeal, from its own examination of the transcript of the evidence, that the applicant’s counsel was never prevented from continuing with his line of defence. The Court attached importance to the fact that the applicant’s counsel was able to address the jury in a final speech which lasted 45 minutes without interruption, apart from a brief intervention which was found to be justified, and that the substance of the applicant’s defence was reiterated in the trial judge’s summing-up, albeit in a very abbreviated form. The Court therefore found that the judicial interventions, although excessive and undesirable, did not render the trial proceedings as a whole unfair.   The Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that the applicant’s other complaints under Article 6 did not give rise to any separate issues. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.     [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court.   In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.