article 6

Cards (33)

  • article 6 - the right to a fair trial
  • background of A6
    magna carta 1215
    bill of rights 1689 - protected right to trial by jury
    act of settlement 1701 - judicial independence
    s3 constitutional reform act 2005 - protects judges from political pressure
  • article 6 is a limited right meaning it cannot be interfered with unless
    the limitation is allowed under the rights itself
    or the state derogates
  • A6(1) - everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal. It should be public unless it is in the interests of health and morals, national security and then the press and public are to be excluded from the trial
  • 6(2) - everyone charged with a criminal record is presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law
  • WOOLMINGTON - set out 'innocent until proven guilty' by the prosecution
  • 6(3) everyone charged has the following minimum rights if charged with a criminal offence
  • 6(3)(a) - to be informed promptly in a language he understands
  • 6(3)(b) - to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence
  • 6(3)(c) - to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing
  • 6(3)(d) - to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination on his behalf
  • 6(3)(e) - to have free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court
  • 6(1) - the right to a public hearing can protect individuals from secret decisions that may breach their rights and limit their ability to appeal
  • BEGGS v UK - 'reasonable' is subjective and depends on the complexity of case - 10 years is too long for appeal
  • PINOCHET - judges must be independent from the case
  • TWOMEY - judge can try case without jury if there is jury tampering
  • the 7 principles of a fair trial
    R - reasoned and final judgement
    E - equality of arms
    A - access to a court
    L - legal representation
    R - rules of evidence
    A - attendance at court and right to participate
    P - presumption of innocence
  • reasoned and final judgement - a fair criminal or civil trial should have a clear decision at the end of the hearing
  • equality of arms - one party of a trial should not be at a disadvantage to the other
  • steel and morris v uk - there should be a fair balance between parties
  • T and V vs UK - child defendants must be able to understand proceedings but not be intimidated
  • children who are charged with criminal offences are dealt with in a youth court
    However, children charged with the most serious crimes are tried in the crown court, despite the ECtHR stating this is in violation of A6, the procedure remains in place
  • access to court requires a structure of courts and appeals.
    certain cases have limitations periods which prevent cases being brought after a certain amount of time - e.g 3 years limitation for personal injury and 6 years for property claims in tort
  • GOLDER v UK - people cannot be denied access to a court
  • legal representation - there is no absolute right to legal representation but being unable to afford legal representation can restrict a persons right to a fair trial
  • BENHAM v UK - legal aid and representation is necessary where liberty is at stake
  • rules of evidence - different states have different rules
    hearsay evidence CANNOT be used in a criminal case but may be accepted in a civil case
    evidence obtained through torture etc WILL NOT be admissible
  • GAFGEN v GERMANY - evidence gained through ill treatment is unfair
  • OTHMAN v UK - cannot gain evidence through torture
  • attendance at court - the D had the right to attend court and to participate but may be removed whilst issues of national security are discussed
  • MURRAY v UK - judge can draw adverse interferences from silence
  • presumption of innocence - an individual has the right to not be compelled to give evidence that could be self incrimination however this is not an absolute right and state may compel evidence
  • BROWN v SCOTT - right to not self incriminate is not absolute