INTERIM resolution DH (2000) 27
CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
OF 17 DECEMBER 1996
IN THE CASE OF SAUNDERS AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 February 2000
at the 695th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Saunders case delivered on 17 December 1996 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 19187/91) against the United Kingdom, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 20 July 1988 under Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Ernest Saunders, a British national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint that the use, at the applicant’s trial, of statements made by him to the Department of Trade and Industry inspectors under their compulsory powers had deprived him of a fair hearing;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission and the Government of the United Kingdom on 9 and 13 September 1994 respectively;
Whereas in its judgment of 17 December 1996 the Court:
- held, by sixteen votes to four, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;
- held, unanimously, that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage sustained;
- held, unanimously, that the Government of the respondent State was to pay the applicant, within three months, 75 000 pounds sterling, in respect of costs and expenses, and that simple interest at an annual rate of 8% should be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
- dismissed, unanimously, the reminder of the claim for just satisfaction;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 of the Convention;
Having invited the Government of the respondent State to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 17 December 1996, having regard to the United Kingdom’s obligation under Article 53 of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of the respondent State gave the Committee information about the provisional measures taken preventing new violations of the same kind as those found in the present judgment, while new legislation is being examined (this information appears in the appendix to this interim resolution);
Having satisfied itself that on 27 February 1997, within the time-limit set, the Government of the respondent State paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 17 December 1996,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has provisionally exercised its functions under Article 54 of the Convention and decides to resume consideration of this case, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Convention, once the new legislative measures envisaged by the Government of the United Kingdom enter into force or, at the latest, in December 2000.
Appendix to Interim Resolution DH (2000) 27
Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom
during the examination of the Saunders case
by the Committee of Ministers
The Government of the United Kingdom indicated that, in response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Saunders case, the Attorney General has, as an interim measure, promulgated a guidance note to prosecuting authorities about the handling of cases where the evidence available to the prosecution includes answers obtained by the exercise of compulsory powers.
According to the note, answers obtained pursuant to a procedure which includes the power to compel answers, whatever the investigative or regulatory regime, cannot be used in subsequent criminal proceedings as part of the prosecution case, except for the very limited purposes of proceedings for offences arising out of the giving of evidence (e.g. perjury). The guidance note therefore covers not only evidence obtained by the exercise of powers under Section 434 of the Companies Act 1985, which was in issue in the case of Saunders against the United Kingdom, but also evidence obtained under analogous powers. In addition, the guidance restricts the use by prosecutors of compulsorily acquired answers for the purposes of cross-examination.
On the legislative level a number of amendments designed to prevent new, similar violations are contained in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. The Act has received royal assent but is not yet in force.
The Government of the United Kingdom is of the opinion that the guidance note will help to prevent new violations of the Convention similar to those found, pending the entry into force of the necessary legislative amendments.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy