Saunders v United Kingdom
The use at a criminal trial of answers obtained from the accused under compulsory powers in a company investigation breached the privilege against self incrimination protected by article 6.
Facts
Mr Saunders was the chief executive of Guinness during its takeover of Distillers. Inspectors appointed by the Department of Trade and Industry investigated the takeover, and Mr Saunders was required by law to answer their questions, on pain of punishment for refusing. The transcripts of his answers were later used by the prosecution at his criminal trial for fraud, to show that he was dishonest. He was convicted, and complained that the use of the answers breached his right to a fair trial.
Legal principle
The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of article 6(1). The court said that the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under article 6. The right not to incriminate oneself presupposes that the prosecution seek to prove their case without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused. The use of the compelled answers in the criminal trial infringed that right. The law was changed so that such answers can no longer generally be used in criminal proceedings.
Related cases on slavery, liberty and fair trial (articles 4 to 7)
- Airey v Ireland (1979) 2 EHRR 305
- Al-Khawaja and Tahery v United Kingdom (2012) 54 EHRR 23
- Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5, [2009] 1 AC 564
- Brogan v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 117
- Gillan v United Kingdom (2010) 50 EHRR 45
- Golder v United Kingdom (1979) 1 EHRR 524
- Guzzardi v Italy (1981) 3 EHRR 333
- Murray v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 29
Studying human rights law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
