In an important ruling on the rights of an accused to remain silent, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) yesterday found that a London-based Irishman and his British wife were denied a fair hearing on charges of the possession and supply of heroin.
In the Strasbourg court yesterday Mr William and Ms Karen Condron had the London Court of Appeal's decision reversed and were awarded £15,000 costs against the British authorities.
The couple had been charged in 1995 with supply and possession of heroin with intent to supply following a police surveillance operation in which they had been observed passing items from the balcony of their flat to that of their co-accused.
Acting on the advice of their solicitor, who considered they were unfit to give evidence because they were suffering from heroin withdrawal, the couple had at the time of their arrest refused to give an explanation for their actions. The doctor who examined them at the police station disagreed with the solicitor's assessment.
At their trial, after they had given an explanation for the passing of the items, the judge instructed the jury that in accordance with the new provisions of the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act it could draw an adverse inference from their earlier silence.
Although the Court of Appeal found the judge had erred in his instruction, it ruled that the error had not been sufficient to affect the safety of the convictions.
The ECHR reiterated its previous acceptance that the right to silence was not absolute (Murray v UK), but stressed that particular caution was required before a court could invoke an accused's silence against him.
