Article 6 - Case List Flashcards
McCann v UK: Decision
ECtHR held ASBO’s were a civil matter
Beggs v UK: Facts
C was a convicted murderer a rapist
He was awared €6,000 for a violation of Article 6 when his appeal took over 10 years to reach the Scottish appeal courts
Beggs v UK: Decision
Criminal and civil cases should be heard within a reasonable time. What’s considered ‘reasonable’ will depend on case complexity
Bryan v UK: Facts
The planning laws were considered to lack independence as the executive could revoke the ability of planning inspectors to hold appeals
But there was no violation of Art 6 because the applicant could apply for judicial review
Bryan v UK: Decision
The decision makers in the court must be impartial from political pressure and the parties themselves
If there’s evidence of judicial bias/prejudice in a civil case = damages
R v Bow Street Magistrates, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte: Facts
Came before HOL on the question of whether the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet could claim state immunity from torture allegations made by a Spanish court and therefore evade extradition to Spain
Original decision was ignored, as one of the judges failed to declare his links to Amnesty International before/during the hearing
R v Bow Street Magistrates, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte: Decision
The decision makers in the court must be impartial from political pressure and the parties themselves
If a criminal case is found to be bias, the conviction will be quashed or a re-trial ordered
Violation of Art 6 as one of the judges wasn’t impartial - Lord Hoffman
R v Twomey: Facts
Armed robbers stole £1.7 million from Heathrow Airport
R v Twomey: Decision
In criminal cases where there is evidence of jury tampering, judge has the right under s.44 Criminal Justice Act 2003 to try the case without a jury
R v Incedal and Rarmoul Bouhadjar: Facts
The trial involved national security and was partially held in secret
R v Incedal and Rarmoul Bouhadjar: Decision
If a case involves national security, it can be partially held in private
Also applies to
- Mental Health Tribunal
- Youth Courts
^^^ both are held in secret
Osman v UK: Facts
A teacher harassed a pupil and family. Police were notified and teacher had told the police he was unable to control himslef and would do something which is criminally insane and would not do something which was criminally insane if he wasn’t stopped
Eventually he shot the boy and his father who died. Tecaher was convicted criminally of manslaughter. Boy and mother bought civil actions against the police for their failure to apprehend the teacher earlier or to provide them with protection
Case bought against the police - blanket immunity against the police
Hill v CC West Yorkshire
Osman v UK: Decision
Blanket immunity - Breach of Article 6
Provided a disproportionate restriction on access to justice
Always be open to C’s to put their case before a judge and blaket rule which interfered wasn’t acceptable
Golder v UK: Facts
A prisoner who wanted to sue the prison was not allowed to see a solicitor
Golder v UK: Decision
Violation of Article 6 as right to a fair trial includes access to court
Steel and Morris v UK: Facts
Legal aid was not available for libel cases and D’s had to represent themselves, despite being on low wage McDonald’s jobs, used experienced senior barristers
Trial lasted 313 days and D’s lost
Steel and Morris v UK: Decision
The levels of complexity and the different levels of legal support were so great to make the case unfair under Article 6
Also decided level of damges awarded against the D’s was so great it breached Article 10
T and V v UK: Decision
Court decided that children would find a court room and legal jargon intimidating therefore denying them a fair trial
Gafgen v Germany: Decision
Evidence gained thorugh ill-treatment is unfair but if the evidence has no effect on the case outcome, there is no violation of Article 6
Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK: Decision
ECtHR said there could be a violation of Article 6 is there is substantial evidence to suugest the sending of a person to a country where torture is used to gain evidence
Murray v UK: Decision
Inferences drawn by the judge when remaining silent suring police interviews, was not a violation of Article 6 as there were safeguards in place
Brown v Scott: Decision
Complusion was compatible with Article 6
The right of self-incrimination was not a absolute right and could be limited for reasons of public safety. It didn’t undermine the right to a fair trial as other evidence would be needed to be proved as well as any admission by accused
Benham v UK: Decision
D was not eligible for legal representation in the Magistrate’s court. This was considered an Article 6 violation when he was sent to prison for non-payment of the poll tax
R v Ibrahim: Decision
D needed a translator but was denied access
Therefore he didn’t understand the charges against him and the trial proceedings
