The Gazette 1994

GAZETTE

MWH APRIL 1994

(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in the court." In June 1988, Mr. Stanford stood trial at Norwich Crown Court on various counts of rape, indecent assault, unlawful sexual intercourse, kidnapping and making threats to kill arising out of his relationship with a young girl. He was subsequently convicted on one count of rape, one of indecent assault, one of kidnapping and one of making threats to kill. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. During the trial he was placed in the dock, at the front of which was a glass screen. He was unable to hear, inter alia, some of the evidence given and complained about that to the prison officer on duty in the dock and to his solicitor and counsel, who decided not to request the judge to have him moved to a place where he could hear. The Court of Appeal refused Mr. Stanford leave to appeal against conviction. The European Commission of Human Rights declared the application admissible. In its judgment, the European Court of Human Rights held that the court had to consider the proceedings as a whole including the decision of the appellate entirety, as well as the way in which evidence was taken, were fair. See, inter alia, Edwards v United Kingdom, Series A No. 247-B, pp 34- 35, paragraph 34. The court considered that it was not in dispute between those appearing before the domestic court that the applicant had had difficulties in hearing some of the evidence given during the trial. Nor was it disputed that article 6, read as a whole, guaranteed the right of an accused to participate effectively in a criminal trial. That included not only the right to be present but also to hear and follow the proceedings. The court considered that such rights were implicit in the very notion of an adversarial procedure and could also court. Its task was to ascertain whether the proceedings in their

be derived from the guarantees contained in article 6.3(c), (d) and (e).

Acts of the Oireachtas 1993

In the present case, the Court of Human Rights stated that neither the applicant nor his legal representatives sought to bring his hearing difficulties to the attention of the trial judge at any stage throughout the six-day hearing. Counsel, who had lengthy experience in handling criminal cases, chose for tactical reasons to remain silent about the difficulties and there was nothing to indicate that the applicant disagreed with this decision. The state could not normally be held responsible for the actions or decisions of an accused's lawyer. It followed from the independence of the legal profession that the conduct of the defence was essentially a matter between the defendant and his representatives. The applicant maintained that the Government bore responsibility for the poor acoustics of the courtroom. The court considered that the applicant was represented by a solicitor and counsel who had no difficulty in following the proceedings and who would have had every opportunity to discuss with the applicant any points that arose out of the evidence which did not already appear in the witness statements. The Court of Human Rights considered that, in addition, the Court of Appeal (UK) could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to correct an alleged shortcoming in the trial proceedings which had not been raised before the trial judge. See, in that respect, Edwards v UK supra at paragraph 39 and authorities cited therein. This dictum has considerable relevance for criminal trials in Ireland. In the light of the foregoing, the court concluded that there had been no failure by the United Kingdom to ensure the applicant received a fair trial. Consequently, there had been no breach of article 6.1. of the Convention.

A table setting out the Acts of the Oireachtas enacted in 1993 is published overleaf. The following information about how to purchase a copy of the Acts may be of assistance to practitioners. Through Retail Outlet The Acts listed may be purchased from the Government Publications Sale Office, Sun Alliance House, Molesworth Street, Dublin 2 or through any bookseller. Please quote the catalogue or code number when ordering. By Mail Order A mail order service is effected from The Government Supplies Agency, Publications Branch, Postal Trade Section, 4/5 Harcourt Road, Dublin 2 (Telephone 01 -6613111 extension 4040 or 4045, Fax 01-4780645). When ordering by mail please quote the catalogue number and remember your payment should include the price of the publication plus the appropriate postage amount. Current Postage Rates Are As Follows: Weight Not Rate Over 50g 36p lOOg 48p 250g 72p 500g 120p lkg 240p (See table overleaf)

I I (. \ I T R AN S L A T I ONS I M \ ( M I M . I I S I I I \|>1 I ii in I (I Ii .illsl.ilni will iniilu I ,lki

riiiiiiiHTU.il IwtiI .Hid u nu'ill I I .1 I Isl.l I II HIS .111(1 I'll i I i ii w. ( mil.ii I \/i ,,/, \u( mil 4 9 C o r d o n Si. D u b l i n 4. I l l \ I ;i\ 01 - 6601615

NORTHERN IRELAND AGENT * Legal work undertaken on an agency basis * All communications to clients through instructing Solicitors * Consultants in Dublin if required Contact: Seamus Connolly, Moran and Ryan, Solicitors

Arran House,

Bank Building,

35 Arran Quay,

Hill Street,

Dublin 7.

Ncwry, Co. Down. Tel: ( 0 8 0 6 9 3 ) 6 5 3 11 Fax: (080693) 6 2 0 96

Tcl:(()l) 8725622 Fax: (01) 8725404

96