Article 6 Key Cases

Question 1

Airey v Ireland: facts

Answer 1

• Irish woman attempted to get legal separation from abusive husband but was unable to find lawyer she could afford and was denied legal aid

Question 2

Airey v Ireland: principle

Answer 2

• Article 6(1) was held to have been violated, as she had been denied access to the court

Question 3

Benham v UK: facts

Answer 3

• when Benham was imprisoned, for not paying a fine, he complained that he had not been provided with legal representation

Question 4

Benham v UK: principle

Answer 4

• where matter merits it (because defendant faces imprisonment for example) there is right to free legal representation

Question 5

Condron v UK: facts

Answer 5

• two heroin addicts advised to remain silent by solicitor

- trial judge advised jury to draw inferences from their silence

Question 6

Condron v UK: principle

Answer 6

• 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

Question 7

HM Advocate v JK: facts

Answer 7

• 14yo charged, but his trial was delayed by 27 months

Question 8

HM Advocate v JK: principle

Answer 8

• 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

Question 9

John Murray v UK: facts

Answer 9

• 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

Question 10

John Murray v UK: principle

Answer 10

1. it is unlawful to deny access to legal advice - a breach of Article 6(1) when read with Article 6(3)(c)
2. Article 6 rights may extend to pre-trial situations i.e. post-arrest questioning
3. 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

Question 11

McGonnell v UK: facts

Answer 11

• 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

Question 12

McGonnell v UK: principle

Answer 12

• 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

Question 13

Al-Khawaja and Tahery v UK: facts

Answer 13

• 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

Question 14

Al-Khawaja and Tahery v UK: principle

Answer 14

1. 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
2. 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

Question 15

Brennan v UK: facts

Answer 15

• a police officer remained within ear shot while Brennan spoke with his solicitor

Question 16

Brennan v UK: principle

Answer 16

• presence of police officer in this situation likely to be infringement of Article (6)(3)(c)

Question 17

Magee v UK: facts

Answer 17

• applicant interviewed repeatedly by police, over 48 hours, without access to solicitor

Question 18

Magee v UK: principle

Answer 18

• breach of Article 6(1) when read with Article 6(3)(c)

Question 19

Othman v UK: facts

Answer 19

• applicant, Abu Qatada, threatened with deportation to Jordan where he would face trial
• real risk he would be convicted on evidence extracted through torture

Question 20

Othman v UK: principle

Answer 20

• ECtHR held state cannot deport individual to country where real risk that evidence extracted through torture would be used against them in trial

Question 21

R (Gudanaviciene) v Director of Legal Aid Casework: facts

Answer 21

• applicants successfully challenged restrictions on case funding in Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012

Question 22

R (Gudanaviciene) v Director of Legal Aid Casework: principle

Answer 22

• where an unrepresented litigant in person would be disadvantaged, court should give special consideration to whether they should be provided with free legal advice

Question 23

R v Horncastle: facts

Answer 23

• applicants had been convicted on basis of hearsay evidence, which they claimed had prevented them from exercising their Article 6 rights to defend themselves

Question 24

R v Horncastle: principle

Answer 24

• 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

Question 25

R v Stow: facts

Answer 25

• 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

Question 26

R v Stow: principle

Answer 26

• court martial’s bias was breach of Article 6(1) - court martial must maintain same standards as any other court

Question 27

Saunders v UK: facts

Answer 27

• 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)