Taxquet v Belgium

Ashworth reports and comments on the case of Taxquet v Belgium, in which the European Court of Human Rights held that although there is no Convention requirement that lay jurors should give reasons for their decisions, the accused and the public must be able to understand the jury's verdict if...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Criminal law review 2011-03 (3), p.236
Main Author: Ashworth, Andrew
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Convictions
Court decisions
Evidence
Juries
Trials
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Ashworth reports and comments on the case of Taxquet v Belgium, in which the European Court of Human Rights held that although there is no Convention requirement that lay jurors should give reasons for their decisions, the accused and the public must be able to understand the jury's verdict if the trial is to be regarded as fair. Thus there must be sufficient safeguards in place, such as directions or guidance provided by the presiding judge to jurors on the legal issues arising and the evidence adduced, and precise, unequivocal questions put to the jury by the judge, forming a framework on which the verdict is based or sufficiently offsetting the fact that no reasons are given for the jury's answers. This judgment of the Grand Chamber has considerable importance, not only for the operation of jury systems in Council of Europe countries, but also for the court's own role.
ISSN:0011-135X