TAXQUET v. BELGIUM , Application no. 926/05,  16 November 2010

The Grand Chamber of the ECtHR found that there was a breach of Article 6 in this case in which the defendant was convicted of murder by a Belgian Assize Court consisting of a lay jury because the absence of precise questions to the jury meant that he was unable to ascertain which of the items of evidence and factual circumstances discussed at the trial had ultimately caused the jury to find him guilty.

It raises the fascinating question of whether, in the absence of “sign post to verdict questions”, an English or Welsh jury trial is Article 6 compliant.  In the absence of such questions, can an English or Welsh defendant understand why he or she has been found guilty?

The following are quotations from the judgment:

• the Convention does not require jurors to give reasons for their decision … Article 6 does not preclude a defendant from being tried by a lay jury even where reasons are not given for the verdict. Nevertheless, for the requirements of a fair trial to be satisfied, the accused, and indeed the public, must be able to understand the verdict that has been given; this is a vital safeguard against arbitrariness.

   

• In cases with a lay jury, …Article 6 requires an assessment of whether sufficient safeguards were in place to avoid any risk of arbitrariness and to enable the accused to understand the reasons for his conviction

   

• Such procedural safeguards may include, for example, directions or guidance provided by the presiding judge to the jurors on the legal issues arising or 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

   

• the absence of a reasoned verdict by a lay jury does not in itself constitute a breach of the accused's right to a fair trial.

   

• … compliance with the requirements of a fair trial must be assessed on the basis of the proceedings as a whole and in the specific context of the legal system concerned, the Court's task in reviewing the absence of a reasoned verdict is to determine whether, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, the proceedings afforded sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness and made it possible for the accused to understand why he was found guilty.

   

• The questions, which were succinctly worded and were identical for all the defendants, did not refer to any precise and specific circumstances that could have enabled the applicant to understand why he was found guilty.

   

• the questions put in the present case did not enable the applicant to ascertain which of the items of evidence and factual circumstances discussed at the trial had ultimately caused the jury to answer the four questions concerning him in the affirmative.

   

• it should be emphasised that precise questions to the jury were an indispensable requirement in order for the applicant to understand any guilty verdict reached against him.