Brunell and McArdle v the Netherlands · Nos. 30395/20 and 31220/20
European Court of Human Rights · 1 September 2026 · Article 6 § 1
The trial judges doubted a witness and acquitted Kenneth Brunell and Barry McArdle. The appeal judges read the same witness’s recorded evidence, believed it and convicted them. Neither bench had heard the witness speak. Could the second court reverse the first on a question so dependent on credibility?
How the acquittals were reversed
The witness, identified as X, had been questioned before an investigating judge. The defence attended and could put questions to him. The appeal court considered the transcripts alongside other evidence. It relied on his account when overturning the acquittals, despite the trial court’s reasons for doubting him. The Dutch Supreme Court left the convictions in place.
Why an earlier questioning was insufficient
The Strasbourg judges focused on the job the appeal court had taken on. It was deciding guilt afresh and reaching a different view of a decisive witness. Access to a transcript and the earlier chance to ask questions could not supply the judges’ own assessment of his reliability in these circumstances. Both applicants had been denied a fair hearing.
What they could do with the ruling
The men sought a finding they could use to request a retrial. They claimed no damages or legal costs, and Strasbourg awarded none. Article 457 § 1(b) of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure provides a route to seek reopening. The Court identified that as the most appropriate remedy if requested. Its judgment did not itself overturn the convictions or order either man’s release.
Judgment and sources
Read the Strasbourg judgment in HUDOC
Court Registry case announcement
More Strasbourg cases · Netherlands national journal · Individual consultations
