Information Note on the Court’s case-law 89
September 2006
Miraux v. France - 73529/01
Judgment 26.9.2006 [Section II]
Article 6
Article 6-3-a
Information on nature and cause of accusation
Conviction for rape of a defendant committed for trial before an assize court on a charge of attempted rape: violation
Article 6-3-b
Adequate facilities
Reclassification of the charge from attempted rape to rape following the assize court hearing: violation
Facts: The applicant was arrested for the offences of rape and sexual assault on minors. The investigating judge decided to deal only with the charge classified as sexual assault on minors. The applicant was committed to stand trial before an Assize Court on charges which were finally classified as attempted rape and sexual assault. At the end of the hearing, the President of the Assize Court read out the questions that the court and jury would have to answer. In particular, he read out a subsidiary question as to whether the applicant was guilty of the crime of “rape”. The applicant was convicted of rape and aggravated sexual assault. The Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal, finding that he could have challenged the reclassification of the charges.
Law: Article 6 (1), (3) (a) and (3) (b) – No remedy had been available to the applicant allowing him to submit his arguments in defence once the charges had been reclassified. He had not been aware that he might be convicted of rape. A charge of “rape” was more serious than one of “attempted rape”, and a jury would undoubtedly be influenced by this when it came to assess the facts and determine the sentence. This was especially true as juries tended to be particularly sensitive to the fate of victims in general, and victims of sexual offences in particular. Whilst an attempted offence attracted the same maximum sentence as that attracted by the complete offence, it could not be excluded that an Assize Court might take into account, when determining the quantum of the sentence, the difference between the attempted and the complete offence in terms of their “actual” seriousness and the harmful result. It could therefore legitimately be argued that the alteration of the charge by the Assize Court had been such as to result in a harsher sentence for the applicant, without his being given the opportunity to prepare and present a defence against the new charge and its consequences, including if necessary with regard to the actual sentence liable to be imposed. In short, there had been a violation of the applicant’s right to be informed in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and of his right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence.
Conclusion: violation (six votes to one).
Article 41 – The Court made an award for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained and for costs and expenses.
© 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