UK: Absent Witnesses – Al-Khawaja Revisited

Last Updated: 22 February 2012

Article by Peter Fitzgerald, pupil at 6 Kings Bench Walk

On 15th December 2011, the European Court of Human Rights issued its final judgment in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. United Kingdom1. Sitting as a 17-judge Grand Chamber, it partially reversed its own Chamber decision2 on a reference from the British Government, and laid down a new framework for the consideration of when it will be unfair to admit hearsay evidence in a criminal trial.

Under consideration were the convictions of two defendants in English courts: Imad Al-Khawaja had been convicted on 30th November 2004 at the Crown Court at Lewes of two counts of indecent assault, and Alireza Tahery had been convicted on 29th April 2005 at the Crown Court at Blackfriars of a single count of wounding with intent. Al-Khawaja's appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 3rd November 20053, and Tahery was denied leave to appeal by the same court on a renewed application on 24th January 20064. Both applied to the Strasbourg court, claiming their rights under Article 6(1) (the right to a fair trial) read in conjunction with Article 6(3)(d) (the right to examine witnesses) had been violated by the admission of hearsay evidence at their trials in reliance on provisions of the Criminal Justice Acts 1988 and 2003.

In the initial seven-judge Chamber judgment, delivered on 20th January 2009, the court held that the provisions of Article 6(3) constituted express guarantees and could not be read as illustrations of matters to be taken into account when considering whether a fair trial had been held. Following its own decision in Luca v. Italy5, it held that, whatever the reason for a defendant's inability to examine a witness, the starting point was that it was inconsistent with a defendant's Article 6 rights for a conviction to be based solely or to a decisive degree on the evidence of that witness. Applying this "sole or decisive" test to both cases, it held that the counterbalancing factors relied on by the British Government in each case were insufficient, and therefore found a violation of Article 6 in respect of both defendants.

However, later that year, in R. v. Horncastle and another; R. v. Marquis and another; R. v. Carter, first the Court of Appeal on 22nd May6 and then the Supreme Court on 9th November7 declined to follow the Chamber decision in Al-Khawaja, and dismissed appeals against conviction by four defendants convicted on the basis of the hearsay evidence of absent witnesses. In the Supreme Court, the President, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, held that, although domestic courts were required by the Human Rights Act 1998 to take account of the Strasbourg jurisprudence in applying principles that were clearly established, on rare occasions, where a court was concerned that a Strasbourg judgment did not sufficiently appreciate or accommodate some aspect of English law, it might decline to follow that judgment. He held that the Chamber's judgment was such a case, concluding that the European case law lacked clarity in its assessment of exceptions to the strict application of Article 6(3), and criticising the "sole or decisive" test as impractical and unnecessary when applied to common law jurisdictions.

In reconsidering the issue of fairness in its Grand Chamber judgment, the Strasbourg court effectively introduced a new three-stage test:

  1. Is there a good reason for the non-attendance of a witness?
  2. If there is, is the evidence of the absent witness the sole or decisive evidence against the defendant?
  3. If it is, are there sufficient counterbalancing factors in place?

It pointed out that stage 1 fell to be considered before the "sole or decisive" test was applied, and that there could be a breach of Article 6 even where the evidence was not sole or decisive where no good reason was shown for the failure to have the witness examined. As to the application of the test, it held that it was plain that there would be a good reason where the witness had died, but that absence owing to fear called for closer examination. It drew a distinction between fear attributable to threats or other actions of the defendant (or those acting on his behalf or with his knowledge and approval) and that attributable to a more general fear of what would happen if the witness were to give evidence (including fear attributable to the notoriety of the defendant or his associates).

If it was more general fear, the witness's subjective fear would not suffice, and the court would have to conduct appropriate enquiries to determine both whether there were objective grounds for that fear and, if there were, whether those grounds were supported by evidence. It further emphasised that, where a witness has not been examined at any stage, admitting his witness statement in lieu of live evidence must be a measure of last resort, and that before a witness could be excused attendance on the grounds of fear the court must be satisfied that all available alternatives, such as witness anonymity and other special measures, would be inappropriate or impracticable.

However, if was fear attributable to threats or other actions of the defendant (or those acting on his behalf or with his knowledge and approval), it held in effect that stages 2 and 3 fell away, and that it would be appropriate to adduce the evidence of the absent witness even if it were the sole or decisive evidence. It said that to allow the defendant to benefit from the fear he had engendered in witnesses would be incompatible with the rights of witnesses and victims, that no court could be expected to allow the integrity of its proceedings to be subverted in this way, and that a defendant who had acted in this way (or who was aware of and approved of others acting in this way) must be taken to have waived his right to have such witnesses examined under Article 6(3)(d).

As to stages 2 and 3, the court effectively conceded the criticism levelled at its previous jurisprudence by the Supreme Court (which had been reinforced by the submissions of the British Government), and held that the admission of a hearsay statement that is the sole or decisive evidence against a defendant would not automatically result in a breach of Article 6. However, it emphasised that in such circumstances the proceedings would have to be subjected to the most searching scrutiny, and that the admission of such evidence would constitute a very important factor to balance in the scales and would require sufficient counterbalancing factors, including the existence of strong procedural safeguards. The question in each case would be whether there were such factors, including measures that would permit a fair and proper assessment of the reliability of that evidence to take place. It concluded that this would permit a conviction to be based on such evidence only if it were sufficiently reliable given its importance in the case.

In applying this new test to the cases before it, the court held that, in principle, the safeguards contained in English law (viz. the 1988 and 2003 Acts, supported by section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the common law) were strong safeguards designed to ensure fairness. In Al-Khawaja's case, one of the complainants had died before the trial. However, her evidence was supported by two friends to whom she had also made her complaint (with only minor inconsistencies), as well as the evidence of the second complainant (who gave a similar account despite there being no evidence of collusion). It held, reversing its earlier ruling, that in those circumstances the complainant's statement had been properly admitted and that there had been no breach of Article 6.

However, in Tahery's case, a witness (not the complainant) refused to testify due to fear not attributable to Tahery, and his evidence was both uncorroborated and decisive (he being the only witness who claimed to have seen the commission of the offence). It held that the decisive nature of that witness's evidence, in the absence of strong corroborative evidence, meant that the jury had been unable to conduct a fair and proper assessment of the reliability of that evidence, and that there were therefore insufficient counterbalancing factors to compensate for the difficulties caused to Tahery by the admission of that witness's statement. The court therefore upheld its earlier ruling that there had been a breach of Article 6 in his case. It is accordingly clear that the new test established in this case must be applied most carefully if unfairness is to be avoided.

Footnotes

1. The Times, 22nd December 2011

2. 49 E.H.R.R. 1(1)

3. R. v. Al-Khawaja [2006] 1 W.L.R. 1078 ([2005] EWCA Crim. 2697)

4. R. v. Tahery, unreported ([2006] EWCA Crim. 529)

5. 36 E.H.R.R. 807(46)

6. [2009] 2 Cr.App.R. 230(15) ([2009] EWCA Crim. 964)

7. [2010] 2 A.C. 373 ([2009] UKSC 14)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions