- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Morrisey & R v Staines (1997)
Case Summary: This Court of Appeal case (later affirmed by the House of Lords) highlights the limitations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in English law before its incorporation into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998.
Facts:
Case Summary: This Court of Appeal case (later affirmed by the House of Lords) highlights the limitations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in English law before its incorporation into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998.
Facts:
- Appellants convicted of a financial offence appealed their convictions.
- Their appeal centered on statements made during an investigation under the Financial Services Act 1986 (FSA 1986, s.177). This section specifically made these statements admissible as evidence.
- Appellants argued that admitting these statements violated their right to a fair trial (potentially under Article 6 ECHR), and should be excluded under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984, s.78) which allows for the exclusion of improperly obtained evidence.
- The case referenced R v Saunders (1996), where the Court of Appeal hinted at potential future implications of a successful appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
- Admissibility of Evidence: The core issue was whether statements obtained under FSA 1986, s.177, should be admissible despite potentially breaching the appellants' right to a fair trial.
- Conflict between Domestic and International Law: The case presented a direct conflict between a specific provision of English law (making the evidence admissible) and the potential violation of the ECHR (making the evidence inadmissible).
- Judicial vs. Legislative Power: The court grappled with whether it had the power to effectively 'repeal' or override a statute (FSA 1986, s.177) by excluding evidence based on ECHR principles. The court held that it did not possess such legislative power.
- Enforcement of ECHR in English Courts (pre-HRA 1998): The case underscored the limited enforceability of the ECHR in English courts before the Human Rights Act 1998. The ECHR was not directly incorporated into English law, meaning English courts couldn't directly strike down legislation conflicting with it.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
- Section 177 of the FSA 1986 created a statutory presumption of admissibility, which the court could not overturn simply to comply with potential ECHR requirements.
- Excluding the evidence would have been tantamount to judicially repealing a statute – a power the court lacked.
- While acknowledging the unsatisfactory situation (a conflict between domestic law and ECHR principles), the court was bound by the existing statutory framework. The ECHR remained unenforceable in English courts in this context.
- R v Morrisey & R v Staines vividly demonstrates the limitations of relying on the ECHR before its incorporation into English law via the Human Rights Act 1998. It highlights the crucial role the HRA 1998 played in directly incorporating the ECHR into the UK legal system.
- The case illustrates the tension between parliamentary sovereignty and the application of international human rights law.
- Parliamentary Sovereignty: The principle that Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK.
- European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): An international treaty protecting fundamental human rights.
- European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR): The court that interprets and applies the ECHR.
- Judicial Review: The power of the courts to review the legality of government actions. (Note: the court found it lacked the power to judicially review and effectively repeal the statute in this case.)
- Human Rights Act 1998: The Act that incorporated the ECHR into UK law.
0 Comments