Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Criminal Evidence and Respect for Fair Trial Guarantees in the Dialogue Between the European Court of Human Rights and National Courts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Transnational Evidence and Multicultural Inquiries in Europe

Abstract

This chapter examines the growing phenomenon of “transjudicial dialogue” between judges in different national jurisdictions and judges in the international courts. It takes the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as an example of an international court which has engaged actively in such dialogue, reviewing the communications between judges of this court and those of the UK Supreme Court in their respective judgements in the cases of Al-Khawaja [2011] and R v Horncastle [2009], respectively. It concludes that such communications do not erode but instead support the individuality and distinctiveness of judicial systems and, by encouraging knowledge and mutual respect between courts, improve the quality of judgements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Roberts and Hunter (2012), p. 2.

  2. 2.

    Baudenbacher (2003).

  3. 3.

    Slaughter (1994).

  4. 4.

    Slaughter (2003), p. 219.

  5. 5.

    Waters (2007).

  6. 6.

    Cited in Slaughter (1994), p. 194.

  7. 7.

    Ibid., p. 219.

  8. 8.

    Bjorge and Andenas (2011).

  9. 9.

    Stone Sweet (2012).

  10. 10.

    Krisch (2008), p. 184.

  11. 11.

    Ibid. Also, Costa JP, The Relationship Between the European Court of Human Rights and National Constitutional Courts. Lecture, 15 February 2013, Cambridge University.

  12. 12.

    Stone Sweet and Keller (2008); see also Anagnostou (2010).

  13. 13.

    Stone Sweet and Keller (2008), p. 705.

  14. 14.

    ECtHR, Decision of 23 November 1993, Poitrimol v France, Application no. 14032/88.

  15. 15.

    ECtHR, Decision of 7 June 2001, Kress v France, Application no. 39594/98.

  16. 16.

    Krisch (2008), pp. 191–196; Croquet (2011), pp. 357–358.

  17. 17.

    Hoffmeister (2006); Stone Sweet (2012), p. 70; Croquet (2011), pp. 356–357.

  18. 18.

    Preventive Detention, No. 2 BvR 2365/09 (May 4, 2011).

  19. 19.

    See Tracogna (2010).

  20. 20.

    Krisch (2008), p. 200; Martinico and Pollicino (2012).

  21. 21.

    Bertoni (2009).

  22. 22.

    de Wolf and Wallace (2009).

  23. 23.

    http://www.law.gwu.edu/News/20112012events/Pages/JudicialProcess.aspx.

  24. 24.

    Krisch (2008), p. 202.

  25. 25.

    R v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah [2004] UKHL, 26 at 20.

  26. 26.

    See e.g. R v Charnock (1696) 12 St Tr 1377, col 1454.

  27. 27.

    Friedman (2004).

  28. 28.

    R v Sellick [2005] EWCA Crim 651.

  29. 29.

    ECtHR, Decision of 20 January 2009, Al Khawaja and Tahery v United Kingdom, Applications No. 26766/05 & 2222/06, § 42.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., § 35.

  31. 31.

    Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Hearsay and Related Topics (Law Com no. 245).

  32. 32.

    ECtHR, Decision of 13 January 2009, Taxquet v Belgium, Application no. 926/05, § 48.

  33. 33.

    ECtHR, Decision of 16 November 2010, Taxquet v Belgium, Application no. 926/05.

  34. 34.

    [2009] UKSC 14.

  35. 35.

    Para. 36.

  36. 36.

    R v Sellick (fn.28) at [36]–[38] (Waller LJ).

  37. 37.

    At 108.

  38. 38.

    Irving (2012), p. 252.

  39. 39.

    Hale (2012).

  40. 40.

    Sales (2012), p. 266.

  41. 41.

    O’Brian (2011), p. 94.

  42. 42.

    Requa (2010), pp. 209 and 230.

  43. 43.

    Dennis (2010), p. 273.

  44. 44.

    Gearty C (2012) UK Constitutional Group, 9 January 2012, Al-Khawaja and Tahery v the United Kingdom, http://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2012/01/09/conor-gearty-al-khawaja-and-tahery-v-united-kingdom/.

  45. 45.

    Bratza (2011), p. 511.

  46. 46.

    ECtHR, Decision of 15 December 2011, Al Khawaja and Tahery v United Kingdom, Applications No. 26766/05 & 2222/06, §§ 51–56.

  47. 47.

    §§ 56–62.

  48. 48.

    §§ 63–87.

  49. 49.

    § 158.

  50. 50.

    § 147.

  51. 51.

    § 151.

  52. 52.

    § 130.

  53. 53.

    Gearty (fn. 44).

  54. 54.

    Jackson (2005); Jackson (2008), p. 248.

  55. 55.

    Jackson and Summers (2012).

  56. 56.

    Hoffmann, the Lord (2009). The Universality of Human Rights, Judicial Studies Board Annual Lecture. 19 March 2009, available at http://justice-for-families.org.uk/documents/reports/JStudiesBoardLecture0309.htm, para. 27.

  57. 57.

    http://strasbourgobservers.com/2010/05/17/president-of-belgian-constitutional-court-criticizes-european-court-of-human-rights/.

  58. 58.

    Croquet (2011), pp. 368–369.

  59. 59.

    Hale (2012), p. 78.

References

  • Anagnostou D (2010) Does European human rights law matter? Implementation and domestic impact of Strasbourg Court judgments on minority-related policies. Int J Hum Rights 14:721–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher C (2003) Foreword: globalization of the judiciary. Tex Int Law J 38:397–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertoni EA (2009) The inter-American Court of human rights and the European Court of human rights: a dialogue on freedom of expression standards. Eur Hum Rights Law Rev 3:1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjorge E, Andenas M (2011) National implementation of ECHR rights: Kant’s categorical imperative and the convention. Oxford student legal studies paper no 3/2011. Oxford University, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratza N (2011) The relationship between the UK courts and Strasbourg. Eur Hum Rights Law Rev 11:505–512

    Google Scholar 

  • Croquet NAJ (2011) The European Court of human rights’ norm-creation and norm-limiting processes: resolving a normative tension. Columbia J Eur Law 17:307–375

    Google Scholar 

  • de Wolf AH, Wallace DH (2009) The overseas exchange of human rights jurisprudence: the US Supreme Court in the European Court of human rights. Int Crim Justice Rev 19:287–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis I (2010) The right to confront witnesses; meanings, myths and human rights. Georgetown Law J 1011:255–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman RD (2004) Thoughts from across the water on hearsay and confrontation. Crim Law Rev 50:697–709

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale B (2012) Argentoratum Locutum: is Strasbourg or the Supreme Court supreme? Hum Rights Law Rev 12:65–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeister F (2006) Germany: status of European convention on human rights in domestic law. Int J Constitutional Law 4:722–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irving L (2012) A British interpretation of convention rights. Public Law 56:237–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson JD (2005) The effect of human rights on criminal evidentiary processes: towards convergence, divergence or realignment? Mod Law Rev 68:737–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson JD (2008) Faces of transitional justice: two attempts to build common standards beyond national boundaries. In: Jackson J, Langer M et al (eds) Crime, procedure and evidence in a comparative and international context. Essays in honour of Professor Mirjan Damaška. Hart, Oxford, pp 221–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson JD, Summers SJ (2012) The internationalisation of criminal evidence: beyond the common law and civil law traditions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Krisch N (2008) The open architecture of European human rights law. Mod Law Rev 71:183–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinico G, Pollicino O (2012) The interaction between Europe’s legal systems: judicial dialogue and the creation of supranational laws. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brian WE Jr (2011) Confrontation: the defiance of the English courts. Int J Evid Proof 15:93–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Requa M (2010) Absent witnesses and the UK Supreme Court: judicial deference as judicial dialogue? Int J Evid Proof 14:208–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts P, Hunter J (2012) Introduction – the human rights revolution in criminal evidence and procedure. In: Roberts P, Hunter J (eds) Criminal evidence and human rights: reimagining common law procedural traditions. Hart, Oxford, pp 1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Sales PJ (2012) Strasbourg jurisprudence and the Human Rights Act: a response to Lord Irvine. Public Law 56:253–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter AM (1994) A typology of transjudicial communication. Univ Richmond Law Rev 29:99–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter AM (2003) A global community of courts. Harv Int Law J 44:191–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet A (2012) A cosmopolitan legal order: constitutional pluralism and rights adjudication in Europe. Global Constitutionalism 1:53–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet A, Keller H (2008) Assessing the impact of the ECHR on national legal systems. In: Stone Sweet A, Keller H (eds) A Europe of rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 677–712

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracogna C (2010) The influence of the ECHR jurisprudence on the national criminal procedure system. The Italian perspective: From divergence to realignment. Lex et Scientia Int J 17:85–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Waters MA (2007) Creeping monism: the judicial trend toward interpretive incorporation of human rights treaties. Columbia Law Rev 107:628–705

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sussex Law School, University of Sussex, Flamer, BN1 9QQ, UK

    Richard Vogler

Authors
  1. Richard Vogler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Vogler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Law "T. Martines", University of Messina, Messina, Messina, Italy

    Stefano Ruggeri

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vogler, R. (2014). Criminal Evidence and Respect for Fair Trial Guarantees in the Dialogue Between the European Court of Human Rights and National Courts. In: Ruggeri, S. (eds) Transnational Evidence and Multicultural Inquiries in Europe. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02570-4_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation