In this essay, I will argue the fact that, although the English courts are bound by Art 6 of the European Court of Human Rights (thereafter ‘ECHR’) to provide defendants with an opportunity to examine witnesses appearing against them, this is only one feature of the right to a fair trial. In appropriate circumstances the interest of the public in general may allow even the sole or principal evidence against a defendant to be given as hearsay. This is particularly likely to be the case where the defendant himself has been responsible for the failure of the witness to appear at trial. It follows that although the Human Rights Act 1998 (thereafter ‘HRA’) enacts principles that limit the use of hearsay evidence, such evidence is in principle admissible and may be so even where it is the sole or principal evidence against a defendant. One of the effects of the HRA 1998 is to make the European Convention on Human Rights directly enforceable by English courts. Further, by s 2(1)(a), a court determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right must take into account judgments of the ECHR. These are not binding authorities, but it is expected that English courts will follow them unless restrained from doing so by statute or binding case law. Among the ‘minimum rights’ of a defendant in criminal proceedings is the right under Art 6(3)(d) of the Convention ‘to examine or have examined witnesses against him’. Broadly speaking, the effect of this is to give a defendant the right to have a witness who gives evidence against him called to give his testimony and be subjected to cross-examination. It amounts to a prima facie prohibition on the admission of hearsay evidence to support the prosecution case, but the considerations that support this prohibition also justify the exclusion of hearsay evidence that supports the defense case (Thomas v UK). In R v T(D) the Court of Appeal acknowledged that there was a ri