Bäckström and Andersson v. Sweden (dec.)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 89

September 2006

 Bäckström and Andersson v. Sweden (dec.) - 67930/01

Decision 5.9.2006 [Section II]

Article 6

Article 6-3-a

Information on nature and cause of accusation

Adjustment of the charge before parties’ closing statements in appellate court: inadmissible

Article 6-3-b

Adequate facilities

Adequate time

Adjustment of the charge before parties’ closing statements in appellate court: inadmissible

The applicants were charged with several criminal offences including attempted aggravated robbery. The District Court convicted them of this offence. Towards the end of the hearing in the Court of Appeal, when only the parties’ closing statements remained, the president of the court invited them to consider whether the robbery charges could not be regarded as encompassing a charge of completed aggravated robbery. As a consequence, the public prosecutor, in his closing statement, adjusted the charge to concern, in the first place, aggravated robbery and, in the second place, attempted aggravated robbery. The Court of Appeal allowed the adjustment and upheld the judgment, except that it found the applicants guilty of aggravated robbery (finding that the robbery constituted a completed offence and not an attempt).

Inadmissible under Articles 6(1) and (3) (a) and (b) – The applicants were made aware of the possibility that they might be convicted of the completed offence of robbery rather than of an attempted robbery, only on the penultimate day of the appellate court hearing. However, all the facts underlying the adjusted charge were known to the applicants long before. Moreover, counsel for the second applicant was of the opinion that the charge of aggravated robbery could be considered as having been covered by the original indictment. Further, counsel for both applicants stated their position on the adjusted charge on the day when it was introduced. They did not submit any additional arguments on this issue the following day, the last day of the hearing, although they would have been free to do so. Nor did they request an adjournment of the proceedings in order to have more time to consider the issue. In sum, the facts which the applicants in the present case had to address remained the same throughout the proceedings; the prosecutor’s adjustment of the robbery charge did not alter the description of events, but only changed the legal characterisation of the offence and counsel for the applicants were able to – and did – state their position on the adjusted charge: manifestly ill-founded (to be distinguished from the case of Miraux, cited above).

© 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

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy