CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 septembre 2002

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 45 August-September 2002 Cuscani v. the United Kingdom - 32771/96 Judgment 24.9.2002 [Section IV] Article 6 Article 6-3-e Free assistance of interpreter Failure to provide interpreter for hearing on sentencing: violation Facts : The applicant, an Italian national, was prosecuted for fraudulently evading VAT. He initially pleaded not guilty. No request was made for an interpreter at the preliminary hearings. At the trial, the applicant changed his plea to guilty. Defence counsel then informed the court for the first time that the applicant had considerable difficulties in communicating in English and requested that an interpreter be present at the subsequent hearing. The request was granted but at the subsequent hearing on sentencing the court noted that no professional interpreter was present and defence counsel stated that he would “have to make do and mend”. He pointed out that the applicant’s brother was present and the court agreed to make use of him, if need be, although in the end the applicant’s brother was not asked to translate any statement. The applicant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. He sought leave to appeal, on the ground that he had been sentenced on the basis that he had pleaded guilty to frauds totalling £800,000, whereas he accepted only an amount of £140,000. Leave was refused. The applicant later applied to the Criminal Case Review Commission, which concluded that there were grounds for finding that he had not fully understood the nature of the case to which he was pleading, partly because of his inadequate understanding of English and partly because of the inadequate explanation given by his lawyers. However, while it regarded the conviction as arguably unsatisfactory, it did not find that it could be said to be unsafe and consequently declined to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. Law : Article 6 § 1 and   § 3 (e) – The issue of the applicant’s lack of proficiency in English became a live issue when the trial court was informed that he wished to change his plea. The judge was thus put on notice that the applicant had clear problems of comprehension, yet despite having ordered that an interpreter be present, he allowed himself at the sentencing hearing to be persuaded by defence counsel’s confidence in his ability to “make do and mend”. The onus was on the judge to ensure that the absence of an interpreter would not prejudice the applicant’s full involvement in a matter of crucial importance to him and that requirement could not be said to have been satisfied by leaving it to the applicant to invoke the untested language skills of his brother. While the conduct of the defence is essentially a matter between the accused and his lawyer, the trial judge was the ultimate guardian of the fairness of the proceedings and had been clearly apprised of the real difficulties. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court rejected the applicant’s claim for pecuniary damage. It made an award in respect of 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