Donald Joylove is a popular and well-respected television celebrity who hosts an antiques-based gameshow. Donald also runs an antique business of his own, which has profited from the exposure he obtains by being on television. He leads a lavish lifestyle, and has bought himself a countryside mansion, a London townhouse, several high-performance cars and a helicopter.
The police have suspected for some time that, while Donald is likely to earn well as a television celebrity and antiques dealer, his extravagant lifestyle significantly exceeds his likely earnings. They send undercover officers to pose as members of a criminal gang looking to sell stolen goods. The officers go to Donald's antiques store, and after making general conversation they ask Donald whether he knows anyone who could 'shift some hot antiques' for them.
When he says that he does not, they become aggressive, asking him more urgently and belligerently whether he could sell some stolen goods for them. He eventually gives in and says that he could do this, and tells them to drive the stolen antiques to his warehouse. He is subsequently arrested on suspicion of handling stolen goods contrary to section 22 of the Theft Act 1968 (you can assume the arrest itself is lawful).
Following his arrest, the police carry out a search of Donald's country mansion and find nothing of relevance. However, they subsequently search Donald's London townhouse, and discover a locked basement full of stolen antiques. The officers searching his townhouse produce a warrant from a magistrate authorising the search, but the warrant refers only to Donald's country mansion and not his London residence. The warrant itself was thus invalid.
The police later arrested Donald. He is interviewed under caution, but his solicitor Damon Burnall advises him to give a no comment interview. Donald is an alcoholic, and by the time of the interview was beginning the suffer the effects of alcohol withdrawal (nausea and a severe headache, along with anxiety and disorientation). His solicitor is concerned that he is not in a fit state to give a proper account of himself at interview. When the police ask Donald to account for the goods in the basement of his townhouse, he gives a no comment response.
Donald is charged with handling stolen goods of significant value, and his Crown Court trial is listed to take place in 6 months' time. He is granted bail pending the trial.
At Donald's trial, the police did not want to reveal the identity of their undercover offices, so the judge allowed the prosecution to read out a statement from the officers who approached Donald at his antiques store. The judge made no comment on this other than to state that the jury was allowed to take it into account. The judge allowed evidence from the search to be taken into account by the jury. Finally, while Donald gave an explanation for the presence for the stolen property on his premises, the
  judge also directed the jury that they were entitled to make an adverse inference from Donald's failure to account for the property when interviewed. Donald was convicted of handling stolen goods.
Assess the arguments that Donald may raise to suggest that his rights under the ECHR have been violated.
Other than s 78, you are NOT expected to make any reference to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984) when answering this question.
PART B
Critically evaluate the approach of the courts to balancing people's right to manifest their religious beliefs under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights against legitimate aims pursued by the state.
 

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Part A Violation of ECHR Rights 1 Right to a Fair Trial Article 6 Donald could argue that his right to a fair trial was violated due to the judges decision to allow evidence from the undercover office... View the full answer