Article 6 - Case List Flashcards

1
Q

McCann v UK: Decision

A

ECtHR held ASBO’s were a civil matter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Beggs v UK: Facts

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Beggs v UK: Decision

A

Criminal and civil cases should be heard within a reasonable time. What’s considered ‘reasonable’ will depend on case complexity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Bryan v UK: Facts

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Bryan v UK: Decision

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

R v Bow Street Magistrates, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte: Facts

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

R v Bow Street Magistrates, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte: Decision

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

R v Twomey: Facts

A

Armed robbers stole £1.7 million from Heathrow Airport

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

R v Twomey: Decision

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

R v Incedal and Rarmoul Bouhadjar: Facts

A

The trial involved national security and was partially held in secret

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

R v Incedal and Rarmoul Bouhadjar: Decision

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Osman v UK: Facts

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Osman v UK: Decision

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Golder v UK: Facts

A

A prisoner who wanted to sue the prison was not allowed to see a solicitor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Golder v UK: Decision

A

Violation of Article 6 as right to a fair trial includes access to court

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Steel and Morris v UK: Facts

A

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

17
Q

Steel and Morris v UK: Decision

A

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

18
Q

T and V v UK: Decision

A

Court decided that children would find a court room and legal jargon intimidating therefore denying them a fair trial

19
Q

Gafgen v Germany: Decision

A

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

20
Q

Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK: Decision

A

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

21
Q

Murray v UK: Decision

A

Inferences drawn by the judge when remaining silent suring police interviews, was not a violation of Article 6 as there were safeguards in place

22
Q

Brown v Scott: Decision

A

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

23
Q

Benham v UK: Decision

A

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

24
Q

R v Ibrahim: Decision

A

D needed a translator but was denied access

Therefore he didn’t understand the charges against him and the trial proceedings

25
Q

R v Davis: Decision

A

By hiding witnesses and not giving the defence the opportuntiy to cross examine

Unfair