Information Note on the Court’s case-law 16
March 2000
Camilleri v. Malta (dec.) - 51760/99
Decision 16.3.2000 [Section II]
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Admission in evidence at trial of adverse statement revoked by witness before the trial: inadmissible
The applicant was charged with possession of and trafficking in heroin while in prison. A fellow prisoners, G.F, made a signed statement under caution to a police officer accusing the applicant of having supplied him with drugs in prison, and later confirmed his statement under oath before an investigating judge. He later retracted this statement in an affidavit sworn in prison before a notary and in the presence of the applicant. At the applicant’s trial, G.F. confirmed that he had revoked his statement and claimed that he had been under the influence of drugs when he had made it. Counsel for the applicant cross-examined him and a copy of the initial statement was produced in court. The request of the applicant’s counsel that this statement be declared inadmissible was rejected, the Court of Magistrates deciding that it could be admitted in evidence given that it took the form of a properly drawn up procès verbal. The court considered that G.F.’s retraction had been prompted by the applicant’s presence when the affidavit was made and assumed pressure must have been exerted on him by inmates. Moreover, his testimony before the magistrate was very detailed and consistent, which showed that he was lucid at the time. The applicant was eventually found guilty and sentenced to prison. The applicant’s appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal and the Constitutional Court were dismissed.
Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 and § 3 (d): The applicant was able to call before the Court of Magistrates the inmate who had made the incriminating statement and to cross-examine him. This opportunity allowed him to undermine the probative value of the incriminating statement and more than compensated for any alleged disadvantage which had resulted from the fact that the statement had been made in circumstances in which he was unable to challenge its veracity. Therefore, it could not be maintained that the rights of defence had not been secured at the trial. Furthermore, the Court of Magistrates had to make a choice between the competing versions of the truth, and for that purpose had the advantage of hearing the oral testimony of the G.F. and observing his demeanour in the witness box under cross-examination. The court gave detailed reasons for its decision to attach weight to the accusatory statement before the investigating magistrate, which reasons were reviewed and upheld on appeal. Moreover, G.F. gave his initial statement of his own volition and under caution to a police inspector, and confirmed it under oath before the investigating magistrate. G.F.’s consistency of approach over this period strongly argued against his assertion that he was not lucid at the time. Finally, the Court of Magistrates could properly have regard to the fact that the applicant himself was present when G.F. retracted his statement before the notary, implying that some pressure may have been brought on him to withdraw his earlier statement. Therefore, the Court of Magistrates’ verdict could not be deemed arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable, all the more so since it was affirmed by three instances on appeal: manifestly ill-founded.
© 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