Wrong about quashing

In his comment article last week, 'Howard's way proved unfair' (see [2000] Gazette, 18 May, 16), John Wadham suggested that, following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Condron v UK, the courts would have to 'quash convictions not merely because the conviction is unsafe, but in any case where the trial was unfair and violated the standards set out in article 6 of the European convention'.In relation to the Court of Appeal, I disagree.

By section 2 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, as amended, '...the Court of Appeal (a) shall allow an appeal against conviction if they think that the conviction is unsafe; and (b) shall dismiss such an appeal in any other case'.

Section 2 clearly precludes quashing a conviction that, although in breach of article 6 is not 'unsafe' and, notwithstanding the decision in Condron and the Human Rights Act 1998, the Court of Appeal will continue to be bound by it.

Nicholas Mercer, Staple Inn Chambers, London