## Facts

- The case concerned the use of hearsay evidence in criminal trials and its compatibility with the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
- The appellants argued their convictions were unsafe because they were based on hearsay evidence, allegedly breaching Article 6.
- They relied on European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments, including Al-Khawaja and Tahery v UK, asserting ECtHR case law should be binding on UK courts under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA).

## Issues

1. Whether UK courts are required to follow ECtHR decisions on ECHR rights or may depart from them in light of the Human Rights Act 1998.
2. Whether the use of hearsay evidence in criminal trials violates the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR as interpreted by the ECtHR.
3. What standard (if any) should govern when the Supreme Court can deviate from Strasbourg jurisprudence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held it is not bound to follow ECtHR rulings but must give them due consideration under Section 2 of the HRA.
- The Court found that safeguards in English law regarding hearsay evidence, including judicial discretion to exclude unreliable evidence and directions to juries, meant its use does not automatically breach Article 6.
- The Supreme Court disagreed with the ECtHR’s strict approach to hearsay, stating that it could depart from Strasbourg decisions where there are clear reasons.
- The decision emphasized the Supreme Court’s responsibility to interpret the ECHR within the context of the UK’s legal framework.

## Legal Principles

- Section 2 of the HRA requires UK courts to consider, not automatically follow, ECtHR jurisprudence.
- The Supreme Court remains the final arbiter of domestic law, including the application of ECHR rights in the UK.
- Departing from ECtHR case law requires clear reasons, such as differences in legal systems, procedural safeguards, and factual contexts.
- Safeguards in English law for hearsay evidence can justify divergence from Strasbourg interpretations of Article 6.

## Conclusion

R v Horncastle established that UK courts are obliged to consider, but not bound by, ECtHR decisions, and may depart from them where clear reasons are provided. This affirms the Supreme Court's authority and sets a precedent for balancing domestic legal principles with international human rights obligations.

R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14 [2010] 2 AC 373