R v Horncastle & Others [2009] UKSC 14

Court: Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Facts: The defendants were convicted of grievous bodily harm with intent, relying on the victim’s statement, which was deemed to be the ‘sole or decisive’ basis for conviction. The victim was unavailable for cross-examination due to her fear and subsequent death. The admissibility of hearsay evidence was governed by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which allows such evidence under specific circumstances.

Issue: Did the reliance on hearsay evidence violate the defendants' right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR, especially given the precedent set by Al-Khawaja v United Kingdom?

Held: Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court found no breach of Article 6, ruling that the victim’s statement complied with the domestic regime under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, despite being the sole basis of conviction.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Phillips: Explained that while UK courts should generally apply Strasbourg jurisprudence, they may choose to depart from it if they believe the decision fails to appreciate the unique aspects of the UK legal system, allowing for a constructive dialogue with the Strasbourg court. Lord Brown: Argued that no absolute principle emerges from the Strasbourg Court’s rulings, concluding that the domestic legislation on hearsay was properly applied, and thus the convictions were valid and fair.

💡Leveluplaw: This case reaffirmed the UK Supreme Court's authority to diverge from ECtHR precedent when necessary, emphasizing the adequacy of UK legal safeguards against untested hearsay evidence. The decision balances the need for effective legal processes in the UK with the rights of defendants, illustrating the ongoing dialogue between domestic and international human rights standards.