CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 8 octobre 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     478   8.10.02   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT CONCERNING the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a Chamber judgment (Section 4) in the following case, which is not final: [1]   Beckles v. the United Kingdom (application no. 44652/98)                    Violation Article 6 § 1   Keith Anderson Beckles, a United Kingdom national, was convicted on 23 May 1997 of the robbery, false imprisonment and attempted murder of Mohamed Mohamoud. He was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.   According to the prosecution’s case, on 3 January 1996 Mr   Mohamoud picked up W., a prostitute, and arranged to go to her home for sex. When they arrived there were three men, a woman and two teenagers in the flat. Mr Mohamoud was held by the applicant and searched at knife-point by M. who took thirty to forty pounds sterling (GBP) in cash. M. later returned with a quantity of crack cocaine which the occupants of the flat, but not Mr   Mohamoud, smoked. A further sum of money was then taken from Mr Mohamoud. Throughout this time, Mr Mohamoud was prevented from leaving the flat by the applicant. At some stage M., together with the applicant and an unidentified woman, lifted Mr Mohamoud up and threw him out of the window. He fell four floors. He survived, although he was left paralysed from the waist down. The occupants of the flat made no attempt to call an ambulance.   The applicant was arrested on 24 January. He received the following police caution: “You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you say may be given in evidence.” The applicant told the police “He wasn’t pushed. He jumped”, but was advised to wait until he was interviewed at the police station.   At the start of the interview on 24 January 1996 the applicant’s solicitor informed the police that he had advised the applicant not to reply to questions. During the police interview the applicant answered “no comment” to each question.   On 31 May 1996 Mr Mohamoud identified the applicant and the other co-accused in a videotape identification procedure.   On 17 September 1996 the applicant was again interviewed by the police in the presence of his solicitor and under caution. He admitted being in the occasional presence of Mr Mohamoud at the flat and being in the flat on the night of 3-4 January 1996. He denied being in the room when Mr Mohamoud fell from the window and repeated that Mr Mohamoud had not been pushed out. He stated that Mr Mohamoud had not been threatened and was “quite happy”. The applicant declared that he had been told that Mr Mohamoud had “gone out the window”. He had then gone to check and saw Mr Mohamoud lying on the ground below, but did not help because he was “scared” and thought he was dead.   At his trial, when asked during his evidence why he had not answered some or all of the questions put to him during the police interview, the applicant replied that he had done so on the advice of his solicitor. On the request of the trial judge, he also stated that he was willing to answer questions concerning his exchanges with his solicitor at the police station. In the event, neither the trial judge nor the prosecution followed up this matter..   In his summing up to the jury, the trial judge, with reference to section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, directed the jury that they could draw adverse inferences from the applicant’s failure to answer questions that “might point towards guilt”, but that only they could decide if it was “fair and proper” to draw those inferences. He also asked the jury to decide whether the applicant’s reason for not answering questions was “a good one”.   After the applicant had appealed unsuccessfully, leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.   Before the European Court of Human Rights, the applicant alleged that he was denied a fair hearing since the judge at his trial left the jury with the option of drawing an adverse inference from his silence during police questioning.   The Court considered that the trial judge failed to give appropriate weight in his direction to the applicant’s explanation for his silence at the police interview and left the jury at liberty to draw an adverse inference from the applicant’s silence, notwithstanding that it may have found the explanation given by him plausible. The trial judge had also undermined the value of the applicant’s explanation by referring to the lack of independent evidence as to what was said by the solicitor and by omitting to mention that the applicant had been willing both to give his version of the incident to the police before he spoke to his solicitor and to provide the court with details of his exchanges with his solicitor. It had also to be noted that the trial judge invited the jury to reflect on whether the applicant’s reason for his silence was “a good one” without also emphasising that it must be consistent only with guilt.   In the Court’s opinion, the jury should have been reminded of all these relevant background considerations and directed that, if it was satisfied that the applicant’s silence at the police interview could not sensibly be attributed to his having no answer or none that would stand up to police questioning, it should not draw an adverse inference. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded the applicant 19,000 euros for costs and expenses. (The judgment is in English only.)   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of 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: 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: 33 (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.