HRA Article 6

• Article 6 is contained in the European Convention on Human Rights Act, it is the right to a fair trial. A6 is a limited right, which means that the state can intervene with this right is certain circumstances. Any interference must be necessary, in accordance with the law and an appropriate response. States are also permitted a wide margin of appreciation. A6(1) applies to both criminal and civil law, however A6(2) and A6(3) apply solely to criminal law.
• Article 6(1) includes: access to court, equality of arms, legal representation, rules of evidence, juries, public hearings, trial within a reasonable time, independant and impartial court, and attendance at court
• Access to Court is the right to take your case to court (Golder v UK). However, there are limits on this, such as time limits in civil cases
• The right to legal representation where it is 'indispensable for effective access to court' (Airey v Ireland), as many people would not be able to present their case effectively without legal assistance.  In some very limited cases the defendant and their legal representation may not be permitted to attend and hear the evidence, and in these cases the defendant will be awarded a special advocate.
• Under A6(1) the defendant has the right to a fair hearing. This includes equality of arms. This states that each party should have equal opportunity to present their case, but does not mean that the parties should have equal representation (Steel and Morris v UK). Regarding children, there can be special procedures to ensure that they can participate, such as altering the layout of the courtroom, and removal of wigs and gowns (Thompson and Venables v UK).
• Attendance at court, is the expectation that all parties should be in court, which is particularly the case in criminal cases. If present then the parties should be able to participate in, and understand, the proceedings. However, the defendant can waive this right if they do not wish to attend.
• Rules of evidence, which states that the prosecution should disclose all evidence, regardless of whether they plan on relying on it. However, evidence which is unfairly obtained may be excluded from a trial (S.76 PACE).
• A6(1) also includes the right to a public hearing, though this has limitations as the press and public can be restricted in limited circumstances, such as in the interests of national security or the interests of a young person. However, this is a test of necessity and the restriction of press / public must be proportionate. Furthermore, under A6(1) judgement shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public can be excluded from this in these limited circumstances (R v Incedal).
• Though there is no right to a jury under A6(1), it is expected that all defendants accused of triable either way and indictable offences will be offered a trial by jury. However, as a result of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 a trial can be judge only if there is a serious risk of jury tampering or where tampering has taken place (Twomey).
• Under A6(1) the defendant is entitled to a trial within a reasonable time, though these has been no definitive ruling on what constitutes a reasonable time.
• Under A6(1) the defendant has the right to have their case heard by an independent and impartial court. The court must be independent from the executive, and independent from the parties (Pinochet case) and this includes juries who must be impartial (Armstrong v UK).
• The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Woolmington v DPP). Article 6(2) also includes the right to not incriminate oneself, and the right to silence (Saunders v UK). However, the applicant may be required to incriminate themselves in situations required by law, for example under the Road Traffic Act 1988.
• The right to silence is also protected by forbidding the court from drawing inferences of guilt from the fact that an accused person chooses to remain silent. It has been determined that silence cannot be used as the main basis for a suspect’s conviction (Murray v UK) but S.34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 does allow inferences to be drawn if the defendant relies upon evidence at Court, which they could reasonably have been expected to mention when questioned.
• Under A6(3)(a) a person must be informed promptly, in a language they understand, of the nature and cause of the accusation against them as it is impossible to answer an unknown charge
• Under A6(3)(b) a person must have adequate time and facilities to prepare their defense, while the ECtHR has not set out a specific time period, it is recognised that a trial that occurs too quickly will not allow the defendant time to prepare. In some cases, the state may be under a positive duty to delay a trial or allow an adjournment if, for example there is new evidence.
• Under A6(3)(c) someone must be able to defend themselves in person or through legal assistance of their own choosing or, if the defendant does not have sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, it will be given for free when the interests of justice requires it. Free legal advice should be given in criminal cases where liberty is at stake, or it is in the interests of justice (Benham v UK) though this is means tested
• A6(3)(d) provides the right to examine or have examined witnesses under the same conditions as the witnesses against them. This provides the right to the defence to be able to test the prosecutions evidence as convictions based on evidence that the defendant cannot test is likely to be a breach. However under S.86 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 anonymity is permitted for vulnerable witnesses or to prevent intimidation.
• A6(3)(e) is the right to have free assistance of an interpreter if they cannot understand or do not speak the language used in court (Cuscani v UK)
• The rules of natural justice mirror Article 6, these are common law rules on procedural justice that are: the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing.