issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 296 (2011)  
20.12.2011  
Police officer’s presence on jury made trial unfair  
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Hanif and Khan v. the United Kingdom  
(application nos. 52999/08 and 61779/08), which is not final1, the European Court of  
Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1  
(right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of both  
applicants.  
The case concerned the applicants’ complaint that the presence of a police officer on the  
jury, which convicted them of drugs offences, violated their right to a fair hearing.  
Principal facts  
The applicants, Ilyas Hanif and Bakish Allah Khan, are British nationals who were born in  
1967 and 1978 respectively. At the time of lodging his application, Mr Hanif was serving  
an eight-year prison sentence; Mr Khan is currently serving a 15-year sentence. They  
were both convicted in January 2007 of conspiracy to supply heroin.  
During the trial, in which they were co-defendants, Mr Hanif’s defence was that a third  
man had left the drugs in his car. The court heard evidence from police officers, who said  
that they had not seen anyone else in the car. One of the jurors, AT, indicated to the  
judge that he was a serving police officer and that he knew one of the police officers  
giving evidence, MB. AT stated that he had known MB for about ten years and that on  
three occasions they had worked on the same incident, although not in the same team.  
They had never worked at the same station and did not know each other socially. The  
defence made an application to discharge AT but the judge rejected the application. AT  
subsequently became the jury foreman.  
The applicants appealed their conviction arguing that the jury which convicted them was  
not impartial, because of the presence of the police officer. In March 2008, the Court of  
Appeal upheld the applicants’ conviction. It referred to a recent change introduced by the  
Criminal Justice Act 2003 which had permitted persons in certain occupations which were  
previously ineligible for jury duty, including police officers, to sit on juries. It therefore  
considered that police officers could not be considered solely by reason of their  
occupation to be biased in favour of the prosecution. As the police officer sitting as juror  
in the applicants’ case had not had any connection with the prosecution of the case, no  
violation of Article 6 arose.  
The applicants were refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords in June 2008.  
1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month  
period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the  
Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further  
examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral  
request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.  
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for  
supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:  
www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution  
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court  
Relying on Article 6 § 1, the applicants complained that the presence of a police officer  
on the jury denied them the right to a fair trial.  
Mr Hanif’s application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13  
October 2008 and Mr Khan’s application was lodged on 15 December 2008. Given their  
similar background, the Court decided to join them.  
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:  
Lech Garlicki (Poland), President,  
David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland),  
Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom),  
Päivi Hirvelä (Finland),  
George Nicolaou (Cyprus),  
Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro),  
Vincent A. de Gaetano (Malta), Judges,  
and also Lawrence Early, Section Registrar.  
Decision of the Court  
The Court referred to its consistent case-law to the effect that it is of fundamental  
importance in a democratic society that the courts inspire confidence in the public and  
the accused and emphasised the need to ensure that juries are free from bias and the  
appearance of bias.  
It noted that the the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which for the first time allowed police  
officers to serve in juries in England and Wales, was also a departure from the rule  
followed in a number of other jurisdictions which have trial by jury. Of the jurisdictions  
surveyed by the Court,2 only two permitted police officers to serve on juries3 and in  
both, it was possible to challenge the inclusion of jurors without providing any reasons  
for the challenge. Recent public consultations in a number of jurisdictions4 had shown  
support for the continued exclusion of police officers from jury service. The Court  
therefore considered that the effect of the amendment in the circumstances of the case  
required particularly careful scrutiny.  
Mr Hanif’s defence had depended to a significant extent upon his challenge to the  
evidence given by the police officers, including MB. There was therefore a clear dispute  
between the defence and the prosecution regarding the credibility of the evidence of the  
police officers. The Court considered that where there was an important conflict  
regarding police evidence, and a police officer who was personally acquainted with the  
police officer giving the relevant evidence was a member of the jury, that juror might,  
favour the evidence of the police. In the present case, although the juror and the  
witness were not from the same police station, AT had known MB for ten years and had  
worked with him on three occasions. The Court accordingly found that Mr Hanif had not  
been tried by an impartial tribunal, in violation of Article 6 § 1.  
The applicants had been co-defendants in one set of criminal proceedings and had been  
convicted by the same jury. The Court therefore considered that, having found in its  
examination of Mr Hanif’s complaint that the jury could not be considered to constitute  
2
Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Malta, France, Belgium, Norway, Austria, New Zealand, Australia,  
Canada, New York and Hong Kong.  
3
Belgium and New York.  
Scotland, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, Hong Kong.  
4
2
an “impartial tribunal” for the purpose of Article 6 § 1 in light of AT’s presence, it would  
be artificial to reach a different conclusion regarding the “tribunal” which had tried Mr  
Khan. Thus the Court considered that there had also been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in  
respect of Mr Khan.  
Article 41  
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court decided that the finding  
of a violation of Article 6 constituted sufficient just satisfaction and rejected the  
applicants’ claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage. However it held that the United  
Kingdom was to pay Mr Hanif 4,500 euros (EUR) and Mr Khan EUR 2,000 in respect of  
costs and expenses.  
The judgment is available only in English.  
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.  
Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on  
www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s  
RSS feeds.  
Press contacts  
[email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08  
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)  
Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)  
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)  
Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)  
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)  
Petra Leppee Fraize (tel: + 33 3 90 21 29 07)  
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of  
Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European  
Convention on Human Rights.  
3