## Facts

- R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14 addressed the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal trials under UK law.
- Hearsay evidence is a statement made outside court, offered to prove the truth of its contents, and is generally inadmissible, but the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) created statutory exceptions.
- The Supreme Court examined the interaction between domestic provisions for hearsay and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
- The ECtHR had found in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v United Kingdom that hearsay as the sole or decisive evidence for a conviction breaches Article 6.
- The case raised the question of whether UK courts must apply the ECtHR’s ‘sole or decisive’ rule or whether the safeguards provided by the CJA 2003 suffice.
- Subsequent cases, including R v Ibrahim (Dahir) and R v Riat, considered the impact and precedent of Horncastle within UK law.

## Issues

1. Whether hearsay evidence admitted under the CJA 2003 violates the right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR, especially when it is the sole or decisive evidence.
2. Whether UK courts are obliged to follow the ECtHR's interpretation of Article 6 concerning hearsay, or may apply domestic law safeguards instead.
3. Whether the statutory safeguards in the CJA 2003 are adequate to prevent unfair trials resulting from the admission of hearsay evidence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that UK courts are not automatically bound by ECtHR rulings, even when considering the HRA 1998.
- The Court found that the CJA 2003 provides sufficient safeguards to ensure the fairness of criminal trials when admitting hearsay evidence.
- The ‘sole or decisive’ test articulated by the ECtHR was criticized as lacking clarity and practicality within the context of English criminal procedure.
- Courts should continue to apply the admissibility tests of the CJA 2003, considering the reliability and circumstances of evidence, rather than excluding evidence solely due to the ‘sole or decisive’ standard.
- The Supreme Court’s approach in Horncastle has been followed in later cases such as R v Ibrahim (Dahir) and R v Riat.

## Legal Principles

- Section 114 of the CJA 2003 allows hearsay evidence when it is in the interests of justice; s.116 provides exceptions where witnesses are unavailable for reasons such as death, illness, or fear.
- Section 114(2) requires courts to consider factors including probative value, importance, and circumstances of the statement before admitting hearsay.
- Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows exclusion of evidence if its admission would be unfair.
- Article 6 ECHR ensures the right to a fair trial, including the right to examine witnesses, as interpreted by the ECtHR.
- The Supreme Court confirmed that ECtHR judgments are persuasive under s.2 HRA 1998 but are not binding on UK courts.
- The English legal system is considered to provide adequate guidelines and protections to prevent injustice when hearsay evidence is admitted.

## Conclusion

R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14 established that the statutory regime for hearsay evidence under the CJA 2003, combined with judicial safeguards, provides sufficient protection for fair trial rights under Article 6 ECHR. The Supreme Court declined to adopt the ECtHR’s ‘sole or decisive’ test, affirming the primacy of domestic safeguards and confirming that while ECtHR judgments are influential, they do not bind UK courts where sufficient national protections are already in place.
