John Murray v. United Kingdom
Encyclopedia
John Murray v. United Kingdom was a legal case heard by the European Court of Human Rights
in 1996 regarding the right to silence
in the United Kingdom, especially the legality of the reduction in the right so as to allow for adverse inferences to be made.
John Murray was one of eight people arrested on January 7, 1990 in Belfast
, Northern Ireland
under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989
, he was cautioned as specified in the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. Following his arrest and over twelve interviews at Castlereagh, totaling over twenty-one hours in the next two days, Mr Murray refused to answer any questions despite being warned each time that "a court might draw such [common sense] inference[s] as appeared proper from his failure or refusal to do so."
At the trial in May 1991 before the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland
, sitting without a jury, Mr Murray chose not to give evidence. As part of his decision the judge drew adverse inference
s against the defendant under Articles 4 and 6 of the 1988 Order. Mr Murray was found guilty of aiding and abetting the false imprisonment of a police informer and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.
Mr Murray appealed to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland and lost on July 7, 1992. He had applied to the Commission in 1991, the case was referred to the ECtHR in 1994, heard on June 20, 1995 and the Court gave its opinion on February 8, 1996. Several groups filed written submissions including the Committee on the Administration of Justice
, Amnesty International
and the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights.
Mr Murray complained that his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights
had been breached, notably his right to silence during questioning and at trial, that the inferences from his silence were an integral part of the decision to find him guilty, the lack of access to a lawyer at the beginning of his detention and the different rights under the law in England and Northern Ireland because of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. In the Convention these complaints refer to Article 6 paragraphs 1, 2, and 3c and also Article 14.
The Commission found the reductions to the right of silence were not in breach of Article 6, the right was not absolute. The Court decided thus as Mr Murray was able to remain silent and this was not a criminal offence or contempt of court. Also that the inferences could not be regarded as unfair given the presence of sufficient safeguards, the repeated warnings given during the interviews, the prima facie evidence against the accused and Mr Murray's refusal to provide any explanation, and that the inferences were not a significant part of his conviction. His lack of early access to a lawyer was incompatible with the concept of fairness as it had placed the accused in a situation where his rights might be irretrievably prejudiced.
Mr Murray was awarded £15,000 towards his costs and expenses.
The Court's decisions were by majority - 14-5 in regard of no breach of Article 6-1 and 6-2, 12-7 in regard of a violation of 6-1 with 6-3c, and unanimously that it is not necessary to examine the applicant's complaint of a violation of 6-1 and 14.
European Court of Human Rights
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is a supra-national court established by the European Convention on Human Rights and hears complaints that a contracting state has violated the human rights enshrined in the Convention and its protocols. Complaints can be brought by individuals or...
in 1996 regarding the right to silence
Right to silence
The right to remain silent is a legal right of any person. This right is recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems....
in the United Kingdom, especially the legality of the reduction in the right so as to allow for adverse inferences to be made.
John Murray was one of eight people arrested on January 7, 1990 in Belfast
Belfast
Belfast is the capital of and largest city in Northern Ireland. By population, it is the 14th biggest city in the United Kingdom and second biggest on the island of Ireland . It is the seat of the devolved government and legislative Northern Ireland Assembly...
, Northern Ireland
Northern Ireland
Northern Ireland is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom. Situated in the north-east of the island of Ireland, it shares a border with the Republic of Ireland to the south and west...
under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989
Prevention of Terrorism Act (Northern Ireland)
The Prevention of Terrorism Acts were a series of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1974 to 1989 that conferred emergency powers upon police forces where they suspected terrorism....
, he was cautioned as specified in the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. Following his arrest and over twelve interviews at Castlereagh, totaling over twenty-one hours in the next two days, Mr Murray refused to answer any questions despite being warned each time that "a court might draw such [common sense] inference[s] as appeared proper from his failure or refusal to do so."
At the trial in May 1991 before the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland
Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland
The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland is the head of the judiciary in Northern Ireland, presiding over the Courts of Northern Ireland. The present Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland is Sir Declan Morgan...
, sitting without a jury, Mr Murray chose not to give evidence. As part of his decision the judge drew adverse inference
Adverse inference
Adverse inference is a legal inference, adverse to the concerned party, drawn from silence or absence of requested evidence. It is part of evidence codes based on common law in various countries....
s against the defendant under Articles 4 and 6 of the 1988 Order. Mr Murray was found guilty of aiding and abetting the false imprisonment of a police informer and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.
Mr Murray appealed to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland and lost on July 7, 1992. He had applied to the Commission in 1991, the case was referred to the ECtHR in 1994, heard on June 20, 1995 and the Court gave its opinion on February 8, 1996. Several groups filed written submissions including the Committee on the Administration of Justice
Committee on the Administration of Justice
CAJ is an independent human rights organisation with cross community membership in Northern Ireland and beyond. It was established in 1981 and lobbies and campaigns on a broad range of human rights issues...
, Amnesty International
Amnesty International
Amnesty International is an international non-governmental organisation whose stated mission is "to conduct research and generate action to prevent and end grave abuses of human rights, and to demand justice for those whose rights have been violated."Following a publication of Peter Benenson's...
and the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights.
Mr Murray complained that his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights
European Convention on Human Rights
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953...
had been breached, notably his right to silence during questioning and at trial, that the inferences from his silence were an integral part of the decision to find him guilty, the lack of access to a lawyer at the beginning of his detention and the different rights under the law in England and Northern Ireland because of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. In the Convention these complaints refer to Article 6 paragraphs 1, 2, and 3c and also Article 14.
The Commission found the reductions to the right of silence were not in breach of Article 6, the right was not absolute. The Court decided thus as Mr Murray was able to remain silent and this was not a criminal offence or contempt of court. Also that the inferences could not be regarded as unfair given the presence of sufficient safeguards, the repeated warnings given during the interviews, the prima facie evidence against the accused and Mr Murray's refusal to provide any explanation, and that the inferences were not a significant part of his conviction. His lack of early access to a lawyer was incompatible with the concept of fairness as it had placed the accused in a situation where his rights might be irretrievably prejudiced.
Mr Murray was awarded £15,000 towards his costs and expenses.
The Court's decisions were by majority - 14-5 in regard of no breach of Article 6-1 and 6-2, 12-7 in regard of a violation of 6-1 with 6-3c, and unanimously that it is not necessary to examine the applicant's complaint of a violation of 6-1 and 14.