Ratio Decidendi
The admission of hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 does not necessarily violate Article 6 ECHR, even where the evidence is the sole or decisive evidence against the accused, provided there are sufficient counterbalancing measures to ensure fairness.
ข้อเท็จจริง
The defendants were convicted partly on the basis of statements from witnesses who did not give live evidence at trial. They argued this violated their Article 6 right to examine witnesses.
สรุปคำพิพากษา
The Supreme Court declined to follow Al-Khawaja v UK (ECtHR) and held that the statutory safeguards in the CJA 2003 provided sufficient counterbalancing factors. The sole or decisive rule was not an absolute requirement of Article 6.
คำกล่าวสำคัญ
"The provisions of the 2003 Act are crafted to ensure that the right to a fair trial is not infringed by the admission of hearsay evidence."
— Lord Phillips
การอ้างอิงภายหลัง
Led to a dialogue with the ECtHR, which modified the sole or decisive rule in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v UK (Grand Chamber).