A6 Cases Flashcards
Right to a fair trial
B and P v United Kingdom.
Public Hearing
Both applicants brought cases for residence orders under the Children Act 1989, claiming that holding these in private breached Article 6(1).
The EctHR decided that this provision did not breach A6.
T and V v UK
Fairness
Two boys were tried and convicted in an adult court for the murder of a 2 year old boy.
Steel and Morris V United Kingdom
Equality of Arms
Fast food chain McDonalds sued the claimants for Libel when they issued leaflets outside one of their restaurants detailing the poor quality of the food and the environment impact of the company, Case lasted 313 days.
Saunders V UK
The European Court of Human Rights found that there had been a violation when Saunders was required by government inspectors.
A failure to answer would lead to contempt of court and this breached A6(2).
Brown V Scott
D admitted she was drunk-driving and this admission was used in court.
She argued that this amounted to self incrimination and a violation of A6.
Privvy Council decided that A6 was complied with.
Osman V UK
Police were sued for failure to protect a family from harassment.
The police argued they had immunity from being sued for negligence.
EctHR decided A6 had been violated by the blanket immunity as it was a disproportionate restriction on the claimants right of access to a court.
R V Bow Street Magistrates- Pinochet
One of the judges in the pinochet case had not disclosed his links to Amnesty International.
Judges and panel members must disclose any links to anyone or organisation with the case.
T and V v UK
Two 11 year old boys were tried for the murder of a 2 year old boy in a crown court room.
They claimed an unfair trail in view of their age and trial in public and adult court.
The EctHR decided that the complexity of the case and the different levels of legal support were so great to make the case unfair under A6.
Sec of State for the Home Dep V AF
Applicants were subject to control orders but some of the evidence against them was based on ‘closed’ material.
The House of Lords decided that it was a breach of the right to a fair trial under A6 to hold someone under a control order without sufficient information about the allegation against him.
B and P v UK
The usual practice for hearing residence orders in family cases was to hold the hearings in private, claimed breach of A6.
The EctHR ruled that there are certain cases including this one, where the exclusion of the press and public may be justified there was no breach of A6.
Ibrahim V UK
Defendants were arrested in connection within the London bombings and were refused legal assistance to allow ‘safety interviews’ to be held.
The EctHR ruled their rights had not been infringed and there was no breach of A6.
R V Davis
Several methods were used to protect the identities of witnesses against Davis as they feared for their lives if they were identified.
The House of Lords ruled that the combination of measures used to protect identities hampered the defence to render the trial unfair.
Othman V UK
Othman was arrested and detained under terrorism laws; while he was subject to a control order he was served with a deportation notice.
The EctHR ruled that, under A6, the UK could not lawfully deport the claimant to Jordan because of the risk of the use of torture.
