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.