CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 février 1996

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. February 1996 John Murray v. the United Kingdom - 18731/91 Judgment 8.2.1996 [GC] Article 6 Article 6-1 Fair hearing Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Drawing of inferences from applicant's silence: no violation Article 6-3-c Defence through legal assistance Access to lawyer during the first 48   hours of detention: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Article 6 §§ 1 and 2: the right to silence The right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of a fair procedure under Article   6. Whether adverse inferences infringe Article   6 falls to be determined in the light of all the circumstances of the case, having particular regard to the situations where inferences may be drawn, the weight attached to them by national courts in their assessment of the evidence and the degree of compulsion inherent in the situation. In present case, silence was not a criminal offence and applicant was able to remain silent throughout proceedings. Also, the drawing of inferences was subject to important safeguards. In particular, only common-sense inferences could be drawn where the evidence against the accused was such that it "called" for an answer. The evidence presented at trial constituted a formidable case against the applicant. Thus the drawing of inferences was not unfair or unreasonable. Conclusion : no violation (fourteen votes to five). B.   Access to lawyer Article 6 § 3 may be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply. But depends on the special features of the proceedings involved and the circumstances of the case. The scheme contained in the Order was such that it was of paramount importance for the rights of the defence that an accused has access to a lawyer at the initial stages of police interrogation. Thus if accused chose to remain silent, adverse inferences might be drawn against him. On other hand, if he broke his silence, he ran the risk of prejudicing his defence without necessarily removing the possibility of inferences being drawn. Under such conditions, fairness requires access to a lawyer already at the initial stages of interrogation. Denial of access for 48 hours where the defence might be irretrievably prejudiced was incompatible with rights of accused. Conclusion : violation (twelve votes to seven). II.   ARTICLE 14 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION Not necessary to examine this issue in the light of Court's finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with paragraph   3   (c). Conclusion : unnecessary for Court to rule on issue (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage: finding of violation afforded, in itself, sufficient just satisfaction. B.   Costs and expenses: reimbursement in part. Conclusion : respondent State to pay a specified sum to the applicant (unanimously).   © 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