A6 Right to Fair trial

?
Engel v Netherlands
breach military rules discipline in their courts & punished in military prison for months.felt not meet A6. Must show crim charge - separate to criminal law so outside scope? (autonomous) nature of conduct & severity of sanction = crim charge
1 of 26
Ozturk v Germany
Gr decriminalize minor road offence, O drove and caused property damage, council found liable for admin offence £15. Insufficient penalty (regulatory), nature of conduct was sufficient enough to be criminal charge.
2 of 26
A6(1)(i) Rowe & Davis v UK
Serious connected crimes convicted CA = prison. had gang activity via informant with immunity & £10000. Nondisclosure at trial. undermined fairness? fair battle should know, must give opportunity of knowledge on each side.
3 of 26
John Murray v UK
IRA kidnap, raided house, arrested J, kept silent. told it may count against him in court. Charged. St - A6 isnt guaranteed its implied. show: weight to silence in trial & degree of compulsion to break silence. lots of other evidence & no pressure.
4 of 26
Saunders v UK
CEO rumors of dodgy dealings so inquiry. Gov inspectors power to compell answer Qs or contempt of court (2yr prison). answered. Prosecution relied hevily on answers.St- great compulsion = breach
5 of 26
Jalloh v Germany
drug dealer who swallowed drugs, forcing throw up violated silence? St - if forced to confess (verbal) or other evidence by torture alway breaches A6(1). Inhuman treatment = breach.
6 of 26
O'Halloran & Francis v UK
Grand Chamber deal w/ enforcing speed cameras. O replied with identity and fined. F refused to identify so prosecuted for failure. St - notice pressures with fines to speak. driving privilege & dangerous, appt for limitations. special regime = no bre
7 of 26
A6(1)(iii) V v UK
2 10yo brutally murder 2yo. sufficiently serious charge in public courts. Special procedures (school times, more legal rep, close & higher) still intimidated & psyco evidence not understand. guilty (disc life) ST- violation right to participat effect
8 of 26
A(6)(iv) Schenk v Switzerland
S ad in paper for hitman. Fr man replied. recorded phone convos, went to police, prosecuted for attempt. S challenged recordings. St - admission of calls illegal w/out knowledge. diff rules in EU, too complex. fair even so as challenge & witness.
9 of 26
Barbera, Messegue & Jabardo v Spain
confirm Schenk. Suspect terrorist hearing changed barcelona to madrid suddenly. issues for lawyers, short for complexity. change showed no fair proceeding upheld due to number of defects. more defects easier to convince unfair.
10 of 26
Koing v Germany
R. time? 3 factors: complexity of case, behaviour of D (ask + witness, appeals), behaviour of state officials(police drag out, delay evidence). Proceeded 11yrs was unR many systematic failures
11 of 26
Incal v Turkey
Publishing political leaflets prosecution for nat. sec. In special nat sec court. 3 judges, 1 was member of armed forces, Military judge. Found not independant still in forces so accountable to Gov (direct link). Broadly unaccepted.
12 of 26
Piersack v Belgium
Career judicial system. P accused Murder senior prosecutor involved. They were then the judge on his trial. St - breach impartiality for prior involvement. subjective - personal issues Objective - other doubts.Subj more difficult
13 of 26
Piersack Cont.
Raised obj no guarantee overcoming the bias & hadnt so violation of objective impartiality.
14 of 26
Pretto v Italy
guarantees public pronouncement. just printed hard copies avaliable didnt produce publicly, read out summary. suggested all be oral but maj written judgements so this is sufficient.
15 of 26
A6(2) Minelli v Switzerland
M sued for defamation w/ others. asked courts to stay proceedings while prosecuted others. Time barred court ruled M probably be conviceted so contribute to costs. St - violated innocence. No opportunity of defence.
16 of 26
A6(3)(a) Brozicek v Italy
accused damage flags & assault, returned to Gr. It wrote to him in It, B wrote back saying didnt understand. No response continued in absence & charged. Breached as no evidence would understand, detail was satisfied.
17 of 26
A6(3)(b) Ocalan v Turkey
Only access to case against him 25 days (17000 pgs) lawyers given month longer. Breached access D & lawyers little communication allowed too.
18 of 26
A6(3)(c) Artico v Italy
request legal & granted lawyer said cant accept it for health reasons so no representation. Requested new legal aid, non appt. Breach.
19 of 26
Benham v UK
Liable to be imprisoned for failing to pay poll tax, shouldve had free legal rep - breached due to deprivation of liberty risk.
20 of 26
John Murray
denied access lawyer for 1st 48 hrs of questioning of terrorist charges.
21 of 26
Salduz v Turkey
17 arrested for illegal demonstration, state sec courts no right legal advice. 2 yr imprison. A6 need lawyer from 1st interrogation unless reasons exceptional to justify. Breach
22 of 26
A6(3)(d) Doorson v Netherlands
Drug trafficking, users only help if anonymous convicted by witnesses & Qs. lawyer able to Q anon w/ judge. breach? rejected. large opportunity to challenge credibility of anon compared to Salduz
23 of 26
Van Mechelen v Netherlands
4 involved in armed robberies, police saw go into office & open fire. Charged w/ murder, MS & robbery. Relied on anonmymous reports. complained breach but no breach police can stay anonymous for safety.
24 of 26
Al-Khawaja v UK
2 charged (indecent assault/wounding w/intent) no other evidence St - while it was justifiable to allow hearsay evidence in some circumstances, it was likely never permissible for a conviction to be based solely or decisively on such evidence
25 of 26
Luedicke, Belkacem & Koc v Germany
Non-Gr ntionals convicted. Not fluent, interpreters given. complained violation. Didnt accept narrow concept =violation. Interp facilities more than oral aspects needed. Breached Ozturk. TJ should ensure effective interp assigned.
26 of 26

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Gr decriminalize minor road offence, O drove and caused property damage, council found liable for admin offence £15. Insufficient penalty (regulatory), nature of conduct was sufficient enough to be criminal charge.

Back

Ozturk v Germany

Card 3

Front

Serious connected crimes convicted CA = prison. had gang activity via informant with immunity & £10000. Nondisclosure at trial. undermined fairness? fair battle should know, must give opportunity of knowledge on each side.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

IRA kidnap, raided house, arrested J, kept silent. told it may count against him in court. Charged. St - A6 isnt guaranteed its implied. show: weight to silence in trial & degree of compulsion to break silence. lots of other evidence & no pressure.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

CEO rumors of dodgy dealings so inquiry. Gov inspectors power to compell answer Qs or contempt of court (2yr prison). answered. Prosecution relied hevily on answers.St- great compulsion = breach

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

ECHR
See all Law resources »See all ECHR resources »