Article 6 Key Cases Flashcards
1
Q
Airey v Ireland: facts
A
- Irish woman attempted to get legal separation from abusive husband but was unable to find lawyer she could afford and was denied legal aid
2
Q
Airey v Ireland: principle
A
- Article 6(1) was held to have been violated, as she had been denied access to the court
3
Q
Benham v UK: facts
A
- when Benham was imprisoned, for not paying a fine, he complained that he had not been provided with legal representation
4
Q
Benham v UK: principle
A
- where matter merits it (because defendant faces imprisonment for example) there is right to free legal representation
5
Q
Condron v UK: facts
A
- two heroin addicts advised to remain silent by solicitor
- trial judge advised jury to draw inferences from their silence
6
Q
Condron v UK: principle
A
- adverse inferences can be drawn from a defendant’s silence; silence is not an absolute right, but they should only be drawn if court is sufficiently satisfied it is appropriate to do so
- court should take into account whether lawyer encouraged defendant to remain silent, and whether sufficient explanation can be offered for silence
- here there was breach of Article 6
7
Q
HM Advocate v JK: facts
A
- 14yo charged, but his trial was delayed by 27 months
8
Q
HM Advocate v JK: principle
A
- Article 6(1) requires that trial be in reasonable amount of time - this delay was not reasonable
- was necessary to have regard to age of accused
9
Q
John Murray v UK: facts
A
- Murray denied legal advice for first 48 hours of his detention
- both before he saw his solicitor and afterwards he declined to answer questions
- he complained it was inappropriate for any inference to be drawn from his silence
10
Q
John Murray v UK: principle
A
- it is unlawful to deny access to legal advice - a breach of Article 6(1) when read with Article 6(3)(c)
- Article 6 rights may extend to pre-trial situations i.e. post-arrest questioning
- Right to silence is not absolute - adverse inferences may be drawn from silence, providing it is reasonable to do so, looking at circumstances of case as a whole
11
Q
McGonnell v UK: facts
A
- planning application in Guernsey was rejected
- applicant appealed to specialist planning appeals board
- same people had sat on both original board and appeals board
- appellant complained that he had not had fair hearing as result
12
Q
McGonnell v UK: principle
A
- even relatively minor fault in application of justice could be violation of Article 6(1), particularly where it affects impartiality of trial as it did here
13
Q
Al-Khawaja and Tahery v UK: facts
A
- applicants convicted on hearsay evidence
- Al-Khawaja had statement against him from victim in his indecent assault trial read out; she had died before trial
- Tahery complained about statement read out from witness who was too scared to attend trial
14
Q
Al-Khawaja and Tahery v UK: principle
A
- court held Tahery’s Article 6 rights had been breached, but Al-Khawaja’s had not
- this was based on fact that Tahery’s conviction had been based almost exclusively on a witness statement from a witness who did not give oral evidence - court also stated that conviction based solely on evidence from absent witness (denying possibility to cross-examine) would not always be a breach, providing that sufficient safeguards were in place
15
Q
Brennan v UK: facts
A
- a police officer remained within ear shot while Brennan spoke with his solicitor
16
Q
Brennan v UK: principle
A
- presence of police officer in this situation likely to be infringement of Article (6)(3)(c)
17
Q
Magee v UK: facts
A
- applicant interviewed repeatedly by police, over 48 hours, without access to solicitor
18
Q
Magee v UK: principle
A
- breach of Article 6(1) when read with Article 6(3)(c)
19
Q
Othman v UK: facts
A
- applicant, Abu Qatada, threatened with deportation to Jordan where he would face trial
- real risk he would be convicted on evidence extracted through torture
20
Q
Othman v UK: principle
A
- ECtHR held state cannot deport individual to country where real risk that evidence extracted through torture would be used against them in trial
21
Q
R (Gudanaviciene) v Director of Legal Aid Casework: facts
A
- applicants successfully challenged restrictions on case funding in Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
22
Q
R (Gudanaviciene) v Director of Legal Aid Casework: principle
A
- where an unrepresented litigant in person would be disadvantaged, court should give special consideration to whether they should be provided with free legal advice
23
Q
R v Horncastle: facts
A
- applicants had been convicted on basis of hearsay evidence, which they claimed had prevented them from exercising their Article 6 rights to defend themselves
24
Q
R v Horncastle: principle
A
- SC rejected appeal
- procedural safeguards in place in respect of putting hearsay evidence before court meant that hearsay evidence could properly be admitted without breaching Article 6
25
Q
R v Stow: facts
A
- claimant faced court martial proceedings for drunkenness and using insubordinate language to superior officer
- on appeal, was held military court martial prosecutor had not been impartial; more senior officer responsible for appraising him in and might take his performance in courtroom into account in respect of promotion
26
Q
R v Stow: principle
A
- court martial’s bias was breach of Article 6(1) - court martial must maintain same standards as any other court
27
Q
Saunders v UK: facts
A
- Saunders legally compelled to answer questions asked by independent inspectors as part of investigation into him in connection with company fraud
- his answers were later used as evidence against him by prosecution at trial
- defendant cannot be convicted purely on basis of silence or involuntary self-incrimination
- forcing someone to self-incriminate = breach of Article 6(2)
