Information Note on the Court’s case-law 45

August-September 2002

Allen v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 76574/01

Decision 10.9.2002 [Section IV]

Article 6

Criminal proceedings

Article 6-1

Fair hearing

Self-incrimination: obligation to disclose information to tax authorities: inadmissible

The tax authorities served on the applicant a statutory notice requiring him to provide a certified statement of his asset s and liabilities. As he failed to comply, despite a warning that such failure rendered him liable to a penalty of up to £300, he was presented with a “Hansard warning”. This involved the reading out to him of a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exch equer outlining the possibility that in fraud cases the tax authorities might accept a money settlement rather than instituting criminal proceedings, the decision taking into account the tax-payer’s cooperation. The applicant subsequently provided a schedu le of his assets. He was then convicted of several offences, including cheating the public revenue of tax by delivering a false, misleading and deceptive schedule which omitted diverse assets. His appeals were dismissed.

Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 – The right not to incriminate oneself does not in itself prohibit the use of compulsory powers to require persons to provide information about their financial affairs. Consequently, the requirement that the applicant make a declaration of assets to the tax authorities did not disclose any issue under Article 6 § 1, even though a penalty was attached to failure to comply. The applicant did not complain that the information which he supplied was used against him in the sense that it incriminated him in respect of any pre-existing offence. Moreover, he was not prosecuted for failing to provide information which might incriminate him in pending or anticipated criminal proceedings. He was charged with and convicted of making a false declaration of assets – this wa s not an example of forced self-incrimination about an offence which he had previously committed but was the offence itself. While he may have lied to prevent the authorities uncovering conduct which might expose him to prosecution, the privilege against s elf-incrimination does not give a general immunity in respect of actions motivated by the desire to evade investigation by the tax authorities. Furthermore, not every measure aimed at encouraging individuals to provide information which may be of potential use in later criminal proceedings must be regarded as improper compulsion. The maximum penalty which the applicant risked was £300, while the use of the “Hansard warning” did not bring any improper inducement to bear.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes