The Gazette 1994

120 / 432

GAZETTE MWHAPRIL 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
court. Its task was to ascertain
whether the proceedings in their
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
be derived from the guarantees
contained in article 6.3(c), (d) and (e).
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.
Acts of the Oireachtas 1993
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
IwtiI .Hid u nu'ill
I I .1 I Isl.l I II HIS .111(1 I'll i I i ii w.
( 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.
Tcl:(()l) 8725622 Tel: ( 0 8 0 6 9 3 ) 6 5 3 11
Fax: (01) 8725404 Fax: (080693) 6 2 0 96
96