0370 270 6000

Averill v UK European, Court of Human Rights, 6 June 2000

12 June 2000
The issues

Article 6 – right to a Fair Trial – Right to Silence – Right to see a Solicitor

The facts

The Applicant had been detained in Northern Ireland on 24th April 1994 in connection with two murders. During the first 24 hours of detention access to a solicitor was denied. Fibres taken from gloves and a balaclava found in an abandon burnt our car which had been used by the gunmen in the murder matched fibres found in the applicants hair and clothing. The applicant refused to answer questions and interviews as to his whereabouts at the time of the murder and refused to give any explanation as to the matching fibres. At trial the applicant gave those explanations and called witnesses in support of his defence. The Trial Judge was persuaded by the weight of the forensic evidence against the applicant and drew strong adverse inferences from the applicant’s silence to police questions. The applicant was convicted. Applicants submitted that his right to a fair trial had been breached because of the adverse inferences and because of the denial of access to a solicitor.

The decision

1. It was incompatible with the Article 6 Rights to deny a detained person access to a solicitor during the first 24 hours of detention. There was possible prejudice to the applicant at trial resulting from the decision that he took on being given a caution. The Judge had drawn strong adverse inference from his silence at interview and therefore fairness required that he should have the benefit of the assistance of a lawyer at the initial stages of police interrogation.

2. It was incompatible with the fundamental importance of the right to silence to base a conviction solely or mainly on the accused’s silence. However, where evidence clearly called for an explanation which was not given, then a detainee’s silence could be taken into account in assessing the persuasiveness of the Crown’s evidence.

3. Whether article 6 had been infringed by the drawing of adverse inferences from silence of interview had to be decided in the light of all the circumstances of the case. Regard had to be had to the situation where the inference could be drawn. The degree of compulsion and the weight which the National Court attached a silence within the assessment of evidence. In this case the right to fair trial under Article 6 had not been breached by the Judge drawing adverse inferences from the applicant’s silence. Costs of £5,000.00 awarded to the applicant.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up