CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 novembre 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 69 November 2004 Shannon v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 6563/03 Decision 23.11.2004 [Section IV] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Self-incrimination: imposition of criminal sanctions for refusal to answer questions by financial investigators: admissible The applicant, who was charged by the police with false accounting and conspiracy to defraud, was required to attend before a financial investigator to answer questions on whether any person had benefited from the false accounting. The applicant did not attend the interview because he feared his replies could be used as evidence against him in the trial, and as he had allegedly not obtained satisfactory guarantees from the investigators to the contrary. The applicant was as a result convicted and fined for the offence of failing without reasonable excuse to comply with the financial investigator’s requirements to answer questions. His appeal against conviction was initially allowed by the County Court, which found that the applicant had a right not to answer questions that would have tended to incriminate him. However, the Court of Appeal confirmed the applicant’s conviction on the ground of not having a reasonable excuse for refusing to comply with the investigators’ requirements merely because the information sought could be potentially incriminating. Admissible under Article 6.   © 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