Trial Jury: guarantee against injustice?

   A defendant is a person accused of a wrong doing of a criminal or civil action. Moreover the word injustice has been an issue for many centuries. As injustice is a form of unfair treatment or action against any one person, (Collins English Dictionary). Injustice can be said to be a “violation of another’s right or of what is right; lack of justice… A specific unjust act; a wrong”[1]

   The word ‘trial’ originates from the Anglo-French, from ‘trier’, ‘to try’. (www.gurunet.com). The English Dictionary defines trial as the, “investigation of a case before a judge” The more serious criminal cases are tried on the basis of a document called the indictment - the defendant is indicted on criminal charges specified in the indictment by the prosecutor. In most cases, the prosecution is on behalf of the Crown (the State) and is handled by an official agency called the Crown Prosecution Service, which takes the case over from the police who have already investigated most of the evidence. The first stage will be to decide whether there is a case to answer - what is called a prima facie case. This process, called committal, will be dealt with by a magistrate on the basis of evidence disclosed in papers provided by the prosecutor. If the case proceeds, it is heard in the Crown Court (there is only one Crown Court but it has about 70 centres around the jurisdiction). The trial is before a judge and jury. The judge presides over the trial process by attempting to ensure clarity and fairness. The judge must also consider and decide on legal issues (such as whether a piece of evidence is admissible - should be put before the jury) and also instruct the jury as to the correct view of the law relevant to the case. The jury decides the facts - whose story is more believable - and applies the law to those facts. So, it is the jury not the judge which reaches a verdict on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. In criminal cases, the prosecution has the burden of proof - it must prove guilt, rather than the defendant having to prove innocence. The standard (= level) of proof is heavy - guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

   In less serious criminal cases the case is sent for summary trial in one of over 400 magistrates’ courts. A summary trial means there is no committal and no jury. The trial is before a bench of magistrates. In most cases, there are three magistrates who are "lay" persons - in other words, they are not professional judges nor are they lawyers, but, like the jury, they are persons from the local community. However, there is now an increasing number of "stipendiary" magistrates - paid magistrates who are qualified lawyers. Stipendiary magistrates are, for historical reasons, most common in London and in other large cities. See The Place Of The Magistrates Court In The English Judicial System, and also The English Magistrate which gives a description of the nature and role of the English Magistracy (See for example, the web site of Trafford Metropolitan Magistrates Court and its Code of Practice).

   Historically the jury system was imported to Britain after the Norman Conquest though its early functions were very different to the one that it fulfils today. The first jurors acted as witnesses and were local people that provided information about local matters, and were predominantly used for administrative business. Later in the course of the 17th century under Henry 11 the jury began to have a more important role than they did before. As they moved from reporting on events that they were aware of to deliberating on evidence produced by the parties involved in a dispute.

   Subsequently it became accepted that the juror should know as little as possible about the facts of the case before the trial and this is the case today. A major turn around in the history of the jury was in Bushell’s Case (1670). This case established that the jury were the, ‘sole judges of fact, with the right to give a verdict according to their conscience, and could not be penalized for taking a view of the facts opposed to that of the judge’. This case was a benefit to the legal system, as previously judges would try to intimidate or even bully juries into convicting a defendant, particularly where the crime had political implications. Therefore the importance of the jury system is that it could acquit a defendant, even when the law demanded a guilty verdict and it showed defendants that the trial by jury was not only a protection against injustice but also a loophole whereby real criminals could escape from.

   The main role of the jury was to balance up the evidence and decide what actually happened. The jury is a body of twelve ordinary (or lay), men or women who are chosen to make a decisions of the truth of factual evidence in legal proceedings, on application of the law to the facts (http:www.hmcc.org.uk/cc/jury_service.htm) .

   Juries have been effective into the English legal system, in order to give them empowerment to judge any facts in a case that is a trial by a jury. This therefore gives the legal system undisputed credibility. Juries are mainly put into practice in criminal cases. In criminal cases juries only act in a minority of cases and only decide cases heard in the Crown court. However even the cases held in the crown court a high proportion of these the defendants would plead guilty which would mean that there was no need for a jury. Even in cases, where, the judge directs the jury that the law demands that they acquit the defendant it effectively shows that the jury can make no decision here either. This shows, ‘that juries only actually decide only around 1 percent of criminal cases.

   This is why defendants who do not come from this part of society may prefer to be judged by a jury, that is more likely to include members of his or her own race and class. As the Runnymede Trust found that black defendants charged with either way offence were more likely to opt for trial jury than white defendants. This does not necessarily mean that the magistrates are biased or prejudice to anybody outside their race and class but it shows that if defendants believe this to be the case then the trust in the legal system will be significantly reduced. More importantly it will be even more reduced if the option to choose a particular type of trial is taken away. For these reasons some defendants may opt for the trial by jury as they are seen as a, ‘vital protection against oppressive or politically motivated prosecutions, and as a kind of safety valve for those cases where the laws demands a guilty verdict’ An examples of this is the R v Kronlid and others (1996).

   The defendants were three women that had broken into a British aerospace factory and caused damage costing over 105 million to a fighter plane. The women admitted their wrongdoing and had left a video explaining their actions in the plane …….. However they claimed that under s.3, which is the criminal law, act that provides that it is lawful to commit a crime in order to prevent another crime being committed, and this could involve using such force in certain circumstances. The defendants pointed out that the plane was due to be sold to the Government of Indonesia, which had been involved in oppressive activities against the population of East Timor. They further explained that Amnesty International had estimated that the Indonesians had killed at least a third of the population of East Timor and that the jet was likely to be used in a genocide attack on the survivors. They argued that genocide was a crime therefore their criminal damage was done in order to prevent a crime. Despite the prosecutions given evidence that the Indonesian government had given assurances that the plane would not be used the jury found them not guilty.

   Now because there was a lot of media and political controversy surrounding this trial many believed that the women would be found guilty as they did commit the crime. However they were not and this had a huge implication on the British government position on the issue. This showed that there was an oppressive prosecution towards the defendants and had they had been found guilty it would have been better for the political circles involved. This shows that when law demands a guilty verdict they can acquit. Thomas Jefferson summarises the role that a jury can play in 1789 commenting as follows: ‘ I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which government can be held to the principles of its constitution


   However it can also be argued that there are many disadvantages to trial by jury. It is argued that many defendants choose to have trial by jury to delay to the system. By delaying the process this may put pressure on the Crown Prosecution Service to reduce the charge in exchange for the defendant pleading guilty. Secondly the prosecution witness may fail to attend the trial or at least weaken their recollections if they do not attend, so making acquittal more likely. Thirdly if a defendant is being held on remand, they are allowed additional privileges not given to convicted prisoners. Therefore time spent on remand is deducted from any eventual prison sentence, which means that putting off the trial for as long as possible will maximize the amount of the sentence that can be spent under the more better conditions. This can waste a great deal of time and money. Since many defendants who manipulate the system in this way end up pleading guilty at the last minute. So, that the time preparing the prosecution cases is wasted. R, v Hollington and Emmens (1986). The defendant pleaded not guilty to an offence, the courts generally impose a lesser sentence than they otherwise would, but in this case, the Court of Appeal stated that a defendant charged with an either way offence who opts for a crown court trial in attempt to benefit by the delay cannot expect to receive the same reduction in a magistrates court.

   On the whole however I do not believe that the disadvantages outlined above are compelling enough or relevant enough in considering protection against injustice for the Defendant.   I believe that more pertinently it is relevant in answering this question to look at systems such as the French judicial system, i.e.: ‘inquisitorial procedures’ this is defined as “a procedure that inquires into the facts and circumstances and law with a view to reaching the truth. The active role of the judge is perhaps the single most distinguishing feature. It is indeed arguable that judicial systems used in France, Germany and Scandinavia protect the Defendant against injustice and yet do not have a jury system in place. This is because they also uphold the rights as set out in the European Convention of Human Rights which I will turn to next.

   I will now consider other important protections against injustice to a Defendant, namely those enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights. The Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 incorporates the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. The Act consists of a series of provisions describing how describing how the Convention is incorporated into UK law, followed by a Schedule setting out the articles which comprise the Convention rights incorporated. The Act came into force on 2 October 2000. In my opinion Articles 5, 6 and 7 are all fundamental and important protections against injustice.

Article 5 states as follows:
1. ‘Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.
No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
o (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
o (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
o (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority of reasonable suspicion of having committed and offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
o (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
o (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts, or vagrants;
o (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorized entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and the charge against him.
3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
Article 5 is therefore a fundamental and important protection against a Defendant’s injustice as it states that everyone shall have the right to liberty except in certain limited circumstances set out in the article, such as normal criminal or legal processes which must also be clearly provided for the law of the country concerned. The main purpose of Article 5 is to protect people from arbitrary detention. Article 5 also provides certain procedural safeguards for those people who are lawfully detained, such as the right to be informed of the reason for their arrest and any charge against them, the overseeing of detention by a court, a trial within a reasonable time and a right to compensation for unlawful detention. Article 6 protects the Defendant’s rights to a fair trial and therefore injustice and states as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

   Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
a) to be informed promptly in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of accusation against him;
b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free where the interests of justice so require;
d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court. “

   Article 7 ECHR protects a Defendant’s rights as follows: ‘ 1.No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed when the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

   This article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act of omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations2..

   In conclusion I would say on balance that the Jury system in the United Kingdom plays an important part in protecting the Defendant against injustice but I do believe that there are more important protections in place. I do believe that we should maintain our jury system for the reasons argued above and believe that on balance the arguments in favour of maintaining are judicial system would outweigh those against. However, I do not believe that jury trial is the most important protection against injustice as I believe that these are outlined in Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Furthermore, I concede that there are judicial systems in place that work effectively without a jury system such as those that are in place in some of European countries as they also uphold these Articles.

Bibliography:
  • Collins, Gem, English Dictionary, 8th edition, (1992, Harper Collins Publishers, Great Britain)
  • Elliott, C., & Quinn, F., “English Legal System”1st ed, (1996, Person, London)
  • Makins, M (1991) English dictionary 8th ed (Great Britain: Harper Collins publisher)
  • Michael, A and Thompson, B (2002) Case and Materials on Constitutional and Administrative Law 7th ed (United States: Oxford university press inc)
 • Stewart, W.J (2001)Law Dictionary 2nd ed (Great Britain: Harper Collins publishers)
 • Slapper.G.,Kelly. D., the English Legal System, 6th edition, (2003,Cavendish Publishing Limited)
 • Walker’s, W., “English Legal System” 4th ed(2002, Longman, Essex.)

BACK TO LAW


Trial Jury: guarantee against injustice?

   A defendant is a person accused of a wrong doing of a criminal or civil action. Moreover the word injustice has been an issue for many centuries. As injustice is a form of unfair treatment or action against any one person, (Collins English Dictionary). Injustice can be said to be a “violation of another’s right or of what is right; lack of justice… A specific unjust act; a wrong”[1]

   The word ‘trial’ originates from the Anglo-French, from ‘trier’, ‘to try’. (www.gurunet.com). The English Dictionary defines trial as the, “investigation of a case before a judge” The more serious criminal cases are tried on the basis of a document called the indictment - the defendant is indicted on criminal charges specified in the indictment by the prosecutor. In most cases, the prosecution is on behalf of the Crown (the State) and is handled by an official agency called the Crown Prosecution Service, which takes the case over from the police who have already investigated most of the evidence. The first stage will be to decide whether there is a case to answer - what is called a prima facie case. This process, called committal, will be dealt with by a magistrate on the basis of evidence disclosed in papers provided by the prosecutor. If the case proceeds, it is heard in the Crown Court (there is only one Crown Court but it has about 70 centres around the jurisdiction). The trial is before a judge and jury. The judge presides over the trial process by attempting to ensure clarity and fairness. The judge must also consider and decide on legal issues (such as whether a piece of evidence is admissible - should be put before the jury) and also instruct the jury as to the correct view of the law relevant to the case. The jury decides the facts - whose story is more believable - and applies the law to those facts. So, it is the jury not the judge which reaches a verdict on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. In criminal cases, the prosecution has the burden of proof - it must prove guilt, rather than the defendant having to prove innocence. The standard (= level) of proof is heavy - guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

   In less serious criminal cases the case is sent for summary trial in one of over 400 magistrates’ courts. A summary trial means there is no committal and no jury. The trial is before a bench of magistrates. In most cases, there are three magistrates who are "lay" persons - in other words, they are not professional judges nor are they lawyers, but, like the jury, they are persons from the local community. However, there is now an increasing number of "stipendiary" magistrates - paid magistrates who are qualified lawyers. Stipendiary magistrates are, for historical reasons, most common in London and in other large cities. See The Place Of The Magistrates Court In The English Judicial System, and also The English Magistrate which gives a description of the nature and role of the English Magistracy (See for example, the web site of Trafford Metropolitan Magistrates Court and its Code of Practice).

   Historically the jury system was imported to Britain after the Norman Conquest though its early functions were very different to the one that it fulfils today. The first jurors acted as witnesses and were local people that provided information about local matters, and were predominantly used for administrative business. Later in the course of the 17th century under Henry 11 the jury began to have a more important role than they did before. As they moved from reporting on events that they were aware of to deliberating on evidence produced by the parties involved in a dispute.

   Subsequently it became accepted that the juror should know as little as possible about the facts of the case before the trial and this is the case today. A major turn around in the history of the jury was in Bushell’s Case (1670). This case established that the jury were the, ‘sole judges of fact, with the right to give a verdict according to their conscience, and could not be penalized for taking a view of the facts opposed to that of the judge’. This case was a benefit to the legal system, as previously judges would try to intimidate or even bully juries into convicting a defendant, particularly where the crime had political implications. Therefore the importance of the jury system is that it could acquit a defendant, even when the law demanded a guilty verdict and it showed defendants that the trial by jury was not only a protection against injustice but also a loophole whereby real criminals could escape from.

   The main role of the jury was to balance up the evidence and decide what actually happened. The jury is a body of twelve ordinary (or lay), men or women who are chosen to make a decisions of the truth of factual evidence in legal proceedings, on application of the law to the facts (http:www.hmcc.org.uk/cc/jury_service.htm) .
   Juries have been effective into the English legal system, in order to give them empowerment to judge any facts in a case that is a trial by a jury. This therefore gives the legal system undisputed credibility. Juries are mainly put into practice in criminal cases. In criminal cases juries only act in a minority of cases and only decide cases heard in the Crown court. However even the cases held in the crown court a high proportion of these the defendants would plead guilty which would mean that there was no need for a jury. Even in cases, where, the judge directs the jury that the law demands that they acquit the defendant it effectively shows that the jury can make no decision here either. This shows, ‘that juries only actually decide only around 1 percent of criminal cases.

   This is why defendants who do not come from this part of society may prefer to be judged by a jury, that is more likely to include members of his or her own race and class. As the Runnymede Trust found that black defendants charged with either way offence were more likely to opt for trial jury than white defendants. This does not necessarily mean that the magistrates are biased or prejudice to anybody outside their race and class but it shows that if defendants believe this to be the case then the trust in the legal system will be significantly reduced. More importantly it will be even more reduced if the option to choose a particular type of trial is taken away. For these reasons some defendants may opt for the trial by jury as they are seen as a, ‘vital protection against oppressive or politically motivated prosecutions, and as a kind of safety valve for those cases where the laws demands a guilty verdict’ An examples of this is the R v Kronlid and others (1996).

   The defendants were three women that had broken into a British aerospace factory and caused damage costing over 105 million to a fighter plane. The women admitted their wrongdoing and had left a video explaining their actions in the plane …….. However they claimed that under s.3, which is the criminal law, act that provides that it is lawful to commit a crime in order to prevent another crime being committed, and this could involve using such force in certain circumstances. The defendants pointed out that the plane was due to be sold to the Government of Indonesia, which had been involved in oppressive activities against the population of East Timor. They further explained that Amnesty International had estimated that the Indonesians had killed at least a third of the population of East Timor and that the jet was likely to be used in a genocide attack on the survivors. They argued that genocide was a crime therefore their criminal damage was done in order to prevent a crime. Despite the prosecutions given evidence that the Indonesian government had given assurances that the plane would not be used the jury found them not guilty.

   Now because there was a lot of media and political controversy surrounding this trial many believed that the women would be found guilty as they did commit the crime. However they were not and this had a huge implication on the British government position on the issue. This showed that there was an oppressive prosecution towards the defendants and had they had been found guilty it would have been better for the political circles involved. This shows that when law demands a guilty verdict they can acquit. Thomas Jefferson summarises the role that a jury can play in 1789 commenting as follows: ‘ I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which government can be held to the principles of its constitution



   However it can also be argued that there are many disadvantages to trial by jury. It is argued that many defendants choose to have trial by jury to delay to the system. By delaying the process this may put pressure on the Crown Prosecution Service to reduce the charge in exchange for the defendant pleading guilty. Secondly the prosecution witness may fail to attend the trial or at least weaken their recollections if they do not attend, so making acquittal more likely. Thirdly if a defendant is being held on remand, they are allowed additional privileges not given to convicted prisoners. Therefore time spent on remand is deducted from any eventual prison sentence, which means that putting off the trial for as long as possible will maximize the amount of the sentence that can be spent under the more better conditions. This can waste a great deal of time and money. Since many defendants who manipulate the system in this way end up pleading guilty at the last minute. So, that the time preparing the prosecution cases is wasted. R, v Hollington and Emmens (1986). The defendant pleaded not guilty to an offence, the courts generally impose a lesser sentence than they otherwise would, but in this case, the Court of Appeal stated that a defendant charged with an either way offence who opts for a crown court trial in attempt to benefit by the delay cannot expect to receive the same reduction in a magistrates court.

   On the whole however I do not believe that the disadvantages outlined above are compelling enough or relevant enough in considering protection against injustice for the Defendant.

   I believe that more pertinently it is relevant in answering this question to look at systems such as the French judicial system, i.e.: ‘inquisitorial procedures’ this is defined as “a procedure that inquires into the facts and circumstances and law with a view to reaching the truth. The active role of the judge is perhaps the single most distinguishing feature. It is indeed arguable that judicial systems used in France, Germany and Scandinavia protect the Defendant against injustice and yet do not have a jury system in place. This is because they also uphold the rights as set out in the European Convention of Human Rights which I will turn to next.

   I will now consider other important protections against injustice to a Defendant, namely those enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights. The Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 incorporates the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. The Act consists of a series of provisions describing how describing how the Convention is incorporated into UK law, followed by a Schedule setting out the articles which comprise the Convention rights incorporated. The Act came into force on 2 October 2000. In my opinion Articles 5, 6 and 7 are all fundamental and important protections against injustice.

Article 5 states as follows:
1. ‘Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.
No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
o (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
o (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
o (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority of reasonable suspicion of having committed and offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
o (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
o (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts, or vagrants;
o (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorized entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and the charge against him.
3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
Article 5 is therefore a fundamental and important protection against a Defendant’s injustice as it states that everyone shall have the right to liberty except in certain limited circumstances set out in the article, such as normal criminal or legal processes which must also be clearly provided for the law of the country concerned. The main purpose of Article 5 is to protect people from arbitrary detention. Article 5 also provides certain procedural safeguards for those people who are lawfully detained, such as the right to be informed of the reason for their arrest and any charge against them, the overseeing of detention by a court, a trial within a reasonable time and a right to compensation for unlawful detention. Article 6 protects the Defendant’s rights to a fair trial and therefore injustice and states as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

   Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
a) to be informed promptly in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of accusation against him;
b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free where the interests of justice so require;
d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court. “
   Article 7 ECHR protects a Defendant’s rights as follows: ‘ 1.No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed when the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

   This article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act of omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations2..