Greetings to all interested in another meeting of the Remedial ECHR Law Course.
CASE OF NATUNEN v. FINLAND 21022/04 31/03/2009
This case concerns drugs, guns, and telephone recordings; there's a violation of Articles 6.1 with 6.3b. Relevance to the AK-RS case: the suppression of evidence by police and prosecutor in their case is parallel to the destruction of evidence by police in Natunen.
Failure of the police to turn over the EDFs, for example, would be considered "refusal of facilities to prepare a defense", Violation of Article 6.3b.
To anglo and others interested - Please comment.
{excerpts follow}
7. The applicant was suspected of an aggravated drugs offence. On an unspecified date the public prosecutor brought charges against him and two other persons, L.J. and J.J. According to the indictment, the defendants had decided to obtain a large amount of amphetamine from Estonia. Between 28 and 29 September 2001 the applicant and J.J. made a trip to Estonia to arrange the purchase, acting on instructions from L.J. On 15 October 2001 the drugs, hidden in a truck, were brought to Finland by a fourth person. During this period the applicant kept in contact with the Estonian supplier by telephone. On 16 October 2001 the truck driver handed over the drugs to L.J. and J.J., who then hid them. Later in the evening J.J. returned for the drugs, as agreed with L.J. While J.J. was driving back to town, the police stopped and detained him and seized the drugs from his possession. In the meantime, the applicant picked up L.J. from a nearby petrol station.
8. Subsequently, all the defendants contested the above charge. The applicant denied any knowledge of the matter. He maintained that his trip to Estonia had only been for pleasure and that he had not received any instructions from L.J. relating to it. Nor had he kept any contact with the supplier. He further denied any knowledge of what had happened at the petrol station on 16 October 2001. Apparently all the defendants asserted that their collective enterprise had concerned a plan to purchase weapons and not drugs. {Import of illegal guns perhaps a less serious offense?}
9. On 1 February 2002 the applicant’s counsel sent a letter to the police inquiring whether all the telephone calls made between the three defendants by mobile phone had been included in the pre-trial investigation material. He also requested the police to confirm in writing that it was not possible to disclose to the defence the telephone metering information in the possession of the police.
10. In their response of 8 February 2002 the police stated that all the telephone calls pertaining to the investigated offence had been included in the pre-trial investigation material. The police further confirmed that the telephone metering information in their possession could not be disclosed as it was confidential.
11. The evidence obtained through telephone surveillance and produced before the court included 21 recorded telephone conversations and 7 recorded text messages between the defendants between 25 September and 16 October 2001, apparently all pertaining to the different stages of the alleged drugs offence.
12. On 14 February 2002 the Espoo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) found that the defendants had planned to purchase drugs and had carried out the plan together. It convicted them as charged and sentenced each of them to six and a half years’ imprisonment. As to the conviction of L.J. and J.J. the court relied mainly on the testimony of the truck driver and the fact that the drugs had been found in J.J.’s possession. As to its finding that all three defendants had acted in concert in committing the offence, the court relied on information obtained through telephone surveillance. According to the court, the numerous recordings of telephone conversations between the defendants consistently showed that there had been a common understanding about the plan to obtain the drugs several weeks before they were delivered. Their co-operation had begun on 28 September 2001, at the latest, when the applicant had made a trip to Estonia with J.J. Since that journey they had been showing concern about the delay in the delivery. The court found the defendants’ account of the plan to purchase weapons unsubstantiated. The court also relied on the recordings in concluding that the applicant had participated in the actual receiving of the drugs just as actively as the other defendants, even though he had not been there to receive them in person.
13. The applicant, along with the other parties, appealed against the judgment to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten). In his letter of appeal he claimed that all that had been established beyond dispute was that he had made a trip to Estonia and that he had been in contact with the other defendants by telephone, but that did not connect him to the offence of which he had been convicted. The District Court had failed to specify which telephone conversations proved that he had been an accomplice.
14. In his subsequent additional submission to the court the applicant also requested that the public prosecutor be ordered to produce all the recordings of the telephone conversations between the applicant and other defendants, as they would reveal that the dealings involving the defendants had related to matters other than drugs. The applicant contended that only a fraction of all these telephone conversations had been included in the pre-trial investigation material, thus giving a misleading impression of the nature of their association. If the court were to refuse this request, the defence should at least be granted access to all of the recordings. {Relevant parallel alert!}
15. The court requested the prosecutor to submit a reply regarding, inter alia, the above request. In his reply of 12 June 2002 the prosecutor stated that it was not disputed that the applicant had been in contact with J.L. and J.J. by telephone also concerning matters other than the purchase of drugs. These conversations had not, however, been included in the case material and had been destroyed, as was required under chapter 5a, section 13 of the Coercive Measures Act (pakkokeinolaki, tvångmedelslag, Act no. 450/1987). Nor did the conversations in question, according to the prosecutor, relate to any other offence which would have allowed the police to keep the recordings without breaching the law. All the conversations that pertained to the matter had been retained, included in the case file and produced to the court.
16. Having regard to the prosecutor’s reply, the Court of Appeal did not render a decision on the applicant’s request. On 13 December 2002, following an oral hearing, the court upheld the applicant’s conviction. It increased his prison sentence to seven years.
17. In its reasons the court stated, inter alia, that, apart from the testimonies given by the defendants, there was no evidence to support the allegations about purchasing weapons. Furthermore, the court found the defendants’ testimonies regarding those allegations not credible. It also found inconsistencies between the applicant’s testimony and some of the telephone conversations, which had been played back to the court.
18. The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) maintaining that his conviction had been based mainly, and in practice, on the courts’ false interpretation of those telephone conversations which had been included in the case file. The defence had never been given access to a large number of recordings which had not been included therein, although a request to that end had been made during the pre-trial investigation. He submitted as evidence the response given by the police on 8 February 2002. As the recordings were subsequently destroyed, the applicant had been denied the right to assess their relevance for his defence. The applicant renewed his contention that the recordings which had not been included in the case file would have shown that he had been involved with the co-defendants in a transaction not related to the purchase of drugs.
19. On 19 December 2003 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
.......
23. Section 1 of the Act on Public Prosecutors (laki yleisistä syyttäjistä, lag om allmänna åklagare, Act no. 199/1997) provides, inter alia, that it is the duty of a prosecutor to see to the realisation of criminal liability in the consideration of a criminal case, the assessment of the charge and the trial in a manner consistent with the public interest and the legal safeguards of the parties.
24. The same principle applies to the conduct of the police, which has the duty, under section 7 (1) of the Criminal Investigations Act (esitutkintalaki, förundersökningslag, Act no. 449/1987) to investigate and take into consideration the facts both for and against the suspect.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 AND 3 (b) OF THE CONVENTION
25. The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention that the proceedings had been unfair. The destruction of a major part of the recordings by the police had not been in conformity with the principle of equality of arms and had deprived him of the right to have adequate facilities for the preparation of his defence.
Article 6 of the Convention reads, in relevant parts, as follows:
“1. In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
...
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
...”
26. The Government contested those arguments.
A. Admissibility...The Court notes that those complaints are not manifestly ill-founded....they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
2. The Court's Assessment
37. The Court firstly notes that the applicant’s complaints, as submitted in his application, only concerned lack of access to the totality of recordings of telephone conversations between himself and the other defendants, and not the telephone metering information obtained through the secret surveillance. Rather than a fresh complaint, his subsequent submission of letters relating to the facts of the case may be regarded as a response to the Government’s contention that he had not pleaded the relevance of the destroyed recordings to his defence until having submitted the letter of appeal. For this reason the Court does not find it necessary to examine the Government’s argument set out in paragraph 36 above. As to the other submissions of the parties, the Court states the following.
38. The Court reiterates that the guarantees in paragraph 3 of Article 6 are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial set out in paragraph 1. In the circumstances of the case it finds it unnecessary to examine the applicant’s allegations separately from the standpoint of paragraph 3 (b), since they amount to a complaint that he did not receive a fair trial. It will therefore confine its examination to the question of whether the proceedings in their entirety were fair (see Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, §§ 33-34, Series A no. 247‑B, and Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, § 59, ECHR 2000‑II).
39. It is a fundamental aspect of the right to a fair trial that criminal proceedings, including the elements of such proceedings which relate to procedure, should be adversarial and that there should be equality of arms between the prosecution and defence. The right to an adversarial trial means, in a criminal case, that both prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed and the evidence adduced by the other party. In addition Article 6 § 1 requires that the prosecution authorities disclose to the defence all material evidence in their possession for or against the accused (see, mutatis mutandis, Rowe and Davis, cited above, § 60, with further references).
40. However, the entitlement to disclosure of relevant evidence is not an absolute right. In any criminal proceedings there may be competing interests, such as national security or the need to protect witnesses at risk of reprisals or keep secret police methods of investigation of crime, which must be weighed against the rights of the accused. In some cases it may be necessary to withhold certain evidence from the defence so as to preserve the fundamental rights of another individual or to safeguard an important public interest. However, only such measures restricting the rights of the defence which are strictly necessary are permissible under Article 6 § 1. Moreover, in order to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial, any difficulties caused to the defence by a limitation on its rights must be sufficiently counterbalanced by the procedures followed by the judicial authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Rowe and Davis, cited above, § 61, with further references).
41. In cases where evidence has been withheld from the defence on public interest grounds, it is not the role of this Court to decide whether or not such non-disclosure was strictly necessary since, as a general rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them. In any event, in many cases, such as the present one, where the evidence in question has never been revealed, it would not be possible for the Court to attempt to weigh the public interest in non-disclosure against that of the accused in having sight of the material. It must therefore scrutinise the decision-making procedure to ensure that, as far as possible, it complied with the requirements to provide adversarial proceedings and equality of arms and incorporated adequate safeguards to protect the interests of the accused (see, mutatis mutandis, Rowe and Davis, cited above, § 62)
42. More specifically, Article 6 § 3 (b) guarantees the accused “adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence” and therefore implies that the substantive defence activity on his behalf may comprise everything which is “necessary” to prepare the main trial. The accused must have the opportunity to organise his defence in an appropriate way and without restriction as to the possibility to put all relevant defence arguments before the trial court and thus to influence the outcome of the proceedings (see Can v. Austria, no. 9300/81, § 53, Commission’s report of 12 July 1984, Series A no. 96, and Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, § 220, 9 October 2008). Furthermore, the facilities which should be enjoyed by everyone charged with a criminal offence include the opportunity to acquaint himself, for the purposes of preparing his defence, with the results of investigations carried out throughout the proceedings (see C.G.P. v. the Netherlands, (dec.), no. 29835/96, 15 January 1997, and Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, § 84, 15 November 2007). {NOTE: THIS MEANS NOT MERELY ITEMS IN THE CASE FILE.}
43. Failure to disclose to the defence material evidence, which contains such particulars which could enable the accused to exonerate himself or have his sentence reduced would constitute a refusal of facilities necessary for the preparation of the defence, and therefore a violation of the right guaranteed in Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see C.G.P., cited above). The accused may, however, be expected to give specific reasons for his request (see Bendenoun v. France, 24 February 1994, § 52, Series A no. 284) and the domestic courts are entitled to examine the validity of these reasons (see C.G.P., cited above).
44. Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the number of the destroyed recordings, or the contents thereof, cannot be verified from the material submitted. The Government have not, however, contested the applicant’s submission that the amount of such recordings was of some significance. Nor have they been able to provide any specific information about their contents.
45. As to the Government’s contention that the applicant had only pleaded the relevance of the destroyed recordings after having submitted his letter of appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Court notes that under domestic law the Court of Appeal was empowered to consider questions of both fact and law, and it was still open to the applicant to request new evidence to be produced at that stage. Moreover, the Government have not argued that the requested recordings would, in fact, have been available in the District Court proceedings, any more than in the proceedings before the Court of Appeal. The Court notes in this connection that, although the actual time of destruction of the recordings in question remains unclear, it had presumably taken place in the course of the pre-trial investigation. In this respect the Court refers to the relevant provision of the Coercive Measures Act in force at the relevant time (see paragraph 21 above). As to the Government’s argument that the applicant could have described the contents of the destroyed recordings, the Court considers that the applicant could not have been expected to announce his alleged involvement in a different offence, punishable by law, prior to any charges having been brought against him.
46. The Court reiterates that the requirements of Article 6 presuppose that having given specific reasons for the request for disclosure of certain evidence which could enable the accused to exonerate himself, he should be entitled to have the validity of those reasons examined by a court. Although the applicant, in this case, must have known the contents of the destroyed recordings, as far as they involved him, and even if he had been able to put questions during the trial concerning all of the conversations with the other defendants, the Court points out that the national courts did not find the defendants’ allegations about the purchase of illegal weapons credible, for lack of other supporting evidence (see paragraphs 12 and 17 above). Furthermore, the Court of Appeal did not refuse to order the disclosure of the requested recordings on the ground that the applicant had not given specific and acceptable reasons for his request. Instead, it declined to render a decision in that respect, as the recordings had been destroyed and could thus not have been disclosed to the defence or produced to the court (see paragraphs 15 and 16 above).
47. Even though the police and the prosecutor were obliged by law to take into consideration both the facts for and against the suspect, a procedure whereby the investigating authority itself, even when co-operating with the prosecution, attempts to assess what may or may not be relevant to the case, cannot comply with the requirements of Article 6 § 1. Moreover, it is not clear to what extent the prosecutor was, in fact, involved in the decision to destroy those recordings which were not included in the case file. In this case, the destruction of certain material obtained through telephone surveillance made it impossible for the defence to verify its assumptions as to its relevance and to prove their correctness before the trial courts.
48. The Court finds that the present case is different from, inter alia, Fitt v. the United Kingdom [GC] (no. 29777/96, ECHR 2000‑II) and Jasper v. the United Kingdom [GC] (no. 27052/95, 16 February 2000) where the Court was satisfied that the defence were kept informed and were permitted to make submissions and participate in the decision-making process as far as possible and noted that the need for disclosure was at all times under the assessment of the trial judge, providing a further, important, safeguard. In those cases the Court found no violation under Article 6 § 1 (see Fitt, §§ 48-49, and Jasper, §§ 55-56). The Court recalls that, in this case, the decision regarding the undisclosed evidence was, presumably, made in the course of the pre-trial investigation without providing the defence with the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.
49. In the present case the Court further notes that the contested measure stemmed from a defect in the legislation, in that it failed to offer adequate protection to the defence, rather than any misconduct of the authorities, who were obliged by law, in force at the time, to destroy the impugned recordings (see paragraph 21 above). The Court observes that in the Government Bill for the amendment of the Coercive Measures Act it was considered problematic that information supporting the innocence of the suspect could be destroyed before the resolution of the case (see paragraph 22 above). The relevant provision was amended with effect from 1 January 2004 with a view to better safeguarding the rights of the defence. This amendment, however, came too late for the applicant.
50. Having regard to the above considerations, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention taken together with Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention.
