Edwards
EHRM 16 december 1992, NJCM Bulletin 1993, p. 449-453 met
commentaar Myer (Art. 6 EVRM)
De veroordeling van Edwards was hoofdzakelijk gebaseerd op door de
politie verzameld bewijsmateriaal. Edwards bestreed dat hij het
plegen van de tenlastegelegde delicten (one count of robbery and
two counts of burglary) zou hebben bekend. Vervolgens kwam aan het
licht dat bepaalde feiten niet door de politie aan de verdediging
bekend waren gemaakt, zodat het voor de verdediging niet mogelijk
was de geloofwaardigheid en juistheid van de politieverklaringen
aan te vechten.
Deze feiten behelsden: (section 11 en 12) At trial one of the
police-witnesses had stated under cross-examination that no
fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime. In fact two
fingerprints had been found which later turned out to be those of
the next door neighbour who was a regular visitor to the house
(…) A further shortcoming complained of by the applicant related
to the fact that the police had shown two volumes of photographs of
possible burglars (including a photograph of the applicant) to the
elderly victim of the robbery who said that she caught a fleeting
glimpse of the burglar. Her statement read to the jury, said that
she thought she would be able tot recognise the assailant. Yet she
did not pick out the applicant from the photographs. Europees
Hof:
The court considers that it is a requirement of fairness under
paragraph 1 of Article 6, indeed one which is recognised under
English law, that the prosecution authorities disclose to the
defence all material evidence for or against the accused and that
the failure to do so in the present case gave rise to a defect in
trial proceedings. However, when this was discovered, the Secretary
of State, following an independent police investigation, referred
the case to the Court of Appeal which examined the transcript of
the trial including the applicant’s alleged confession and
considered in detail the impact of the new information on the
conviction.