Resolution CM/ ResDH (2012) 230 [1] Hanif and Khan against United Kingdom

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 52999/08, judgment of 20 December 2011, final on 20 March 2012)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012 ) 888E );

Recalling that the respondent State ’ s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and

- of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above-mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2 0 12)888E );

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Action Report

Case of Hanif and Khan v The United Kingdom (Applications no. 52999/08 and 61779/08) ; judgment final on 20 March 2012. Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 20 September 2012

Case Summary

1. Case description:

The case concerns two individuals convicted of drug-related offences. During the trial, a member of the jury informed the judge that he was a serving police officer, and that he knew one of the police officers giving evidence although he had not worked with him in the last two years. Defence counsel applied to have the juror discharged on the grounds that there was a conflict of evidence between the police and the first applicant which the jury would have to resolve, and that it was therefore unfair for the jur y to include a police officer. The trial judge dismissed the application.

The Court found unanimously on the facts that there had been a violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention (right to a fair trial) in respect of both applicants.

Individual Measures

2. Just satisfaction :

The just satisfaction awards of €4,500 to the first applicant and €2,000 to the second applicant have been paid and evidence supplied.

3. Individual measures :

The Government considers no further individual measures are required. It is open to the applicants to make applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for review of their cases.

General Measures

4. General measures :

The Government also considers no general measures to be necessary. The UK courts already have the power to discharge a juror. Should a similar case arise again, the UK courts would be obliged by section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to take into account the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in this case when considering w hether to exercise that power.

The European Court of Human Rights expressly noted at paragraph 145 that it was not assessing the extent to which the legislation permitting police officers to participate in jury service in England and Wales complies with the requirements of Article 6(1) of the Convention, but only whether in the circumstances of the applicants ’ case, there had been a breach of Article 6(1).

5. Publication :

The judgment has been published in the following location:

The British and Irish Legal Information Institute website at http://ww w .bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/2247.html

6. Dissemination:

The Government considers it unnecessary to further disseminate the judgment because the case is confined to its own specific facts and does not give rise to any policy changes.

7. State of execution of judgment

The Government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and that the case should be closed.

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 11 57 th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies .