WS2 Flashcards
Attorney-General v English [1982]
If the risk of prejudice to legal proceedings arises incidentally from a discussion of matters of general interest, then this isn’t contempt of court
A doctor is on trial for the murder of a deformed baby
The Daily Mail publish a story condemning letting deformed children die, but do not mention the doctor by name
The Daily Mail are acquitted (on appeal)
Attorney-General v News Group Newspapers [1987]
When a (civil) trial was 10 months away, it was held that there was no substantial risk of serious prejudice
A-G v Hislop [1991]
In contempt of court, it doesn’t matter whether a particular person is pressured or influenced by a publication… The purposes of the offence include not creating a risk of perception of such risk to other litigants in other cases
Private Eye publish articles defaming the wife of the Yorkshire Ripper, trying to pressure her into dropping her case
It doesn’t matter, therefore, whether she is influenced, or whether the jury were - it’s about the risk of such prejudice
O’Hara v UK [2002]
“Reasonable suspicion” requires some facts or information that would satisfy an objective observer that the person may have committed the offence
Saadi v United Kingdom (2008)
A number of elements must be present for a detention to be lawful:
(1) It must be closely connected to a purpose in A5.1(a)-(f)
(2) It must be necessary (other measures cannot be used)
(3) The length isn’t more than needed
(4) Proper records of the detention are kept
(5) The detention is lawful within domestic law
Engel v The Netherlands (1979–80)
What counts as a criminal charge for A6? Imposition of penalties for avoiding national service, in this case, did count, so A6 was engaged
Process for this:
1. Does the national law class it as ‘criminal’?
2. If not, is it similar to a criminal trial? E.g.:
a. Is a determination of guilt or innocence made?
b. Is there an element of punishment?
Rights in A6.3
(1) To be told promptly and fully of the case against you
(2) To have time and facilities to prepare defence
(3) To have a lawyer, paid for by the state if necessary
(4) To call witnesses, and cross-examine prosecution witnesses
(5) To have an interpreter when needed
R (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home
Department
The Home Secretuary had the ultimate power to set a tariff (minimum term of imprisonment), on the judge’s recommendation. She set a longer tariff than the judge recommended. This breached A6.1, as this was part of the trial and needed to be done by an independent and impartial tribunal.
Rights in A6.1 for criminal cases:
(1) Fair trial
(2) Before an independent and impartial tribunal established by law
(3) Within a reasonable time
(4) Held in public (subject to exceptions)
T v United Kingdom (2000)
Two 11-year-old boys were tried in the Crown Court. This breached A6.1 and the right to effective participation, as although some steps were taken to help the boys understand proceedings, these were insufficient in the circumstances
Note: Jamie Bulger case
