Article 6

• Article 6(1)

  Everyone has a right to a fair trial in civil and criminal cases.
• Independent and Impartial Tribunal

  All cases need to be heard in front of an impartial tribunal - including both civil and criminal cases.

  Judge / Jury must be impartial from both political pressure and the parties themselves.
• Independent and Impartial Tribunal

  Pinochet Case - If there is evidence of prejudice or bias in a civil case, damages will be awarded and a retrial could be ordered.
• Public Hearing

  Court case must be held in public, this means the D should have their case heard in an open court.

  Can be restricted by the state and the trial could be held in a private court, if the case involves either a national security issue or a young offender.
• Public hearing

  R v Incedal - A trial can be held in private in cases of national security and this will not breach Article 6 rights.
• Reasonable Time

  Civil and criminal cases must be heard in a reasonable time. Although, this is not specified, it’s suggested that 6 months is reasonable.
• Reasonable time

  Beggs v UK - a long delay can result in a breach of Article 6 and compensation being paid.
• Right to Legal Advice

  The D has the right to consult private legal advice. This means they cannot be denied the right to speak with lawyers.
• Equality at Arms

  AGRef2002 - It does not matter whether each party has accessed the same level of representation, this will not breach article 6.
• Equality at arms

  Steel and Morris v UK - If the case involves a complete inequality of representation, there will be a breach.
• Disclosure of evidence

  Both prosecution and defence must disclose and have access to evidence.

  The state can withhold evidence from the defence if the case involves sensitive national security issues, this will not breach article 6.
• Access to Court

  Everyone has the right to attend court for their hearing, the state can deny this right for national security purposes.

  Everyone has the right to whether they take to the stand and give evidence in their defence.
• Access to court - Case

  T and V v Uk - there will be a breach of Article 6 rights when the D is unable to understand the proceedings against them.
• Article 6(2)

  presumption of innocence

  Everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

  DPP v Woolington - It is for the prosecution to prove the D is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
• Article 6(2)

  Right to silence

  D has a right to silence and not to be compelled to give evidence at the police station or within court.

  Murray v UK - a ‘no comment’ interview can be used as incriminating evidence, but the police must warn the D this will be done, and this will not breach article 6.
• Article 6(3)

  minimum rights

  (a) Informed promptly of a charge in language they understand.

  (b) Adequate time to prepare for the case.

  (c) Right to legal assistance.

  (d) Right to examine witnesses.

  (e) Right to an interpreter.
• Article 6(3)

  Witness protection.

  Witness protection, protects them from any potential harassment or harm from D or associates.

  R v Davis - If the D’s conviction is solely based on the evidence from an anonymous witness, is a breach of Article 6.
• Rules of Evidence

  Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 states the court has the right to exclude evidence that would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings.
• Rules of Evidence

  This means that evidence gathered through:

  Oppression - pressure

  Torture - severe pain or suffering

  Hearsay - heard evidence, not witnessed it

  Entrapment - induced to commit a crime they wouldn’t have

  are inadmissible and will be excluded at trial.
• Ao3 - Article 6 is a limited right meaning it can be restricted in certain circumstances, arguably when necessary.


  DP- All cases public, unless it’s a child offender or national security. Fair, child is likely to give evidence in a private trial. Unreasonable to have a public trial for national security.

  WDP-Revealing child’s identity after trial is fair if found guilty. Keeps trial private and updates public interest. Unfair if revealed before could be attacked even if found not guilty. Trial for murder of Brianna Ghey is fair as offenders are named Girl X Boy Y until after verdict.
• Ao3 -Use of private hearings can result in an abuse of power as it may go unnoticed.


  DP- When D is removed from courtroom for evidence, could be an abuse of power, not able to argue against it. Lack of media coverage + unknown identities, dull public interest. If breach is occurred no one will know, no knowledge of case.

  WDP- identities published after trial (R v Incedal) with charges, not of the trial itself, no one will know if there’s been an abuse of power.
• Ao3 - The right to legal advice and representation under the equality at arms of Article 6, protects citizens‘ rights.


  DP- Steel and Morris v UK, unfair as only one side had legal representation. AGRef 2002, allows for difference in experience, fair, unrealistic to have both solicitors to have the exact same years of experience.

  WDP- Legal aid doesn’t use a choice which is unfair, don’t get the best for them. Only available in criminal law not civil, unfair, results in breaches as seen in Steel and Morris v UK.
• Ao3 - Vulnerable D’s such as children have special measures put in place to ensure they still receive a fair trial.


  DP- Thompson and Venables case, unfair, in the system - innocent till proven guilty, but extremely publicised. Children can have fidget toys, adult and safe space as seen in Ava Whites case. Makes them at ease.

  WDP- Vulnerable adult D’s and witnesses are protected. Witness will be protected by being on a video link with voice and face distortion and a hidden identity to keep them safe. Protects D’s as prosecution cannot rely on protected witnesses as seen in R v Davis.