The Applicant Abducted A Child, J, Who Suffocated Him And Subsequently Demanded: Policing and Human Rights Law Case Study, UOL, Ireland

On September 27, 2002, the applicant abducted a child, J, who suffocated him and subsequently demanded a ransom from J’s family. The applicant disposed of J’s corpse collected the ransom payment and was subsequently arrested by the police. Whilst being questioned, he was threatened by a police officer with physical harm if he did not reveal the location of J. As a result of the threats, the applicant confessed. He subsequently disclosed the location of J’s body and the police recovered the corpse and secured further evidence.

At the applicant’s trial, the court ruled that the applicant’s confessions were inadmissible on the basis that they had been obtained illegally. However, further evidence, obtained as a result of his confessions, was held to be admissible. Despite having been warned of his right to remain silent and that his previous statements were inadmissible, the applicant at his trial again confessed that he had abducted and murdered J.

On July 28, 2003, the applicant was convicted of murder and kidnapping with extortion causing the death of the victim, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He lodged an appeal with the Federal Court of Justice, which was subsequently dismissed as ill-founded. In June 2004, the applicant filed a constitutional complaint. The Federal Constitutional Court refused to examine the complaint. In separate proceedings, the police officers involved in the threats against the applicant were convicted of coercion and incitement to coercion and given suspended fines. At the time of judgment, a civil claim by the applicant against the relevant authorities for alleged trauma suffered as a result of the threats was pending.

The applicant applied to the European Court of Human Rights, relying upon art.3. The applicant claimed that he had been subjected to torture during his questioning by the police. Further, relying upon art.6, he claimed that his right to a fair trial had been violated, in particular by the admission and use at his trial of items of evidence obtained as a result of the confession extracted from him in breach of art.3. His claim was rejected by a Chamber of the Fifth Section of the European Court of Human Rights and he appealed to the grand chamber.

Held:

(1) unanimously, that the preliminary objection in respect of art.6 was rejected;

(2) by 11 votes to six that the applicant was still a “victim” of a violation of art.3 for art.34 ;

(3) by 11 votes to six that there had been a violation of art.3 ;

(4) by 11 votes to six that there had been no violation of art.6 ;

(5) by 10 votes to seven that the respondent State was to pay a sum of money in respect of costs and expenses.