The K-Zone: Saunders v United Kingdom (1996)

This case ((1997) 23 EHRR 313) confirms that the right to avoid self-incrimination is a key feature of a fair trial, as granted in Article 6 of the EuropeanConventionOnHumanRights.

In RVSaunders1996 the accused was convicted on a number of counts of fraud relating to share dealing. During the investigation of the offence, the police relied on s.434(5) of the CompaniesAct1985, which made it an offence to refuse to answer questions posed by fraud investigators, and provided that the answers to such questions would be admissible in court. Thus Saunders was faced with either incriminating himself or being in contempt of court, an unenviable position. The answers he gave were read out in court, but it is not clear to what extent this led to his conviction.

By a (substantial) majority the ECHR found that there was a breach of Article 6, although it declined to award compensation. It seems that the proble with s.434(5) fo the CA is not that it compels a suspect to answer questions, but rather that it specifically admits the answers in court proceedings. In RVHertfordshireCountyCouncil,ExParteGreen2000, evidence compelled under the s.71 of the EnvironmentalProtectionAct1991 was held not to be a breach of Article 6 because the trial judge had discretion to exclude the evidence.

CaseLaw