| My professional interests |
|
Computing Law Education Science and research |
| My leisure interests |
|
Martial arts Heritage railways Garden railways Motorcycles DIY |
| Downloads |
|
Linux downloads Windows downloads Java downloads Perl downloads Home automation downloads |
| About me |
|
Home & family My CV |
| Site info |
|
Contact the author Download policy Keyword index |
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.
| Search |
| Shameless plug |
 By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK |
| Editorial |
So you want to be a university lecturer? Read this first! Speak like your boss: new developments in managerese |
| Computing features |
|
File handling in the Linux kernel: an in-depth look at how Linux handles files, filesystems, and file I/O
All sorts of Linux stuff Confused about CLASSPATH? answers are here First steps in EJB using jBoss (recently revised for jBoss 3.2) |