• Buro Jansen & Janssen is een onderzoeksburo dat politie, justitie, inlichtingendiensten, de overheid in Nederland en Europa kritisch volgt. Een grond-rechten kollektief dat al 30 jaar publiceert over uitbreiding van repressieve wetgeving, publiek-private samenwerking, bevoegdheden, overheids-optreden en andere staatsaangelegenheden.
    Buro Jansen & Janssen Postbus 10591, 1001EN Amsterdam, 020-6123202, 06-34339533, signal +31684065516, info@burojansen.nl (pgp)
    Steun Buro Jansen & Janssen. Word donateur, NL43 ASNB 0856 9868 52 of NL56 INGB 0000 6039 04 ten name van Stichting Res Publica, Postbus 11556, 1001 GN Amsterdam.
  • Publicaties

  • Europa

  • Politieklachten

  • Bijlage V – Edwards

    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.


    vorige        
    volgende        
    inhoudsopgave en zoeken