Article 6:

• Independent Judge - (What judge has been appointed? For what period of time? Are they under any pressure or influence in their decision making?) R v Bow Street Magistrates ex parte Pinochet (no2) (2000) – The former Chilean Dictator was claiming state immunity from torture allegations made by a Spanish Court, who were asking for his extradition. The original decision had to be set aside, as one of the judges had been a member of Amnesty International and had not declared it.
• Within a reasonable time Article 6(3)(b) (Criminal only) Right to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence. This may include access to a lawyer, especially if detained before trial, to obtain expert evidence and to call witnesses.

  Robins v UK (1997) – over four years to determine a

  simple dispute on costs was unreasonable
• Hearing in public - (not an absolute right, however are

  situations where public and press can be excluded-, like protecting children or privacy of parties) Don’t always have to be in public. B and P v UK (2002) usual practice for hearing residence orders in family cases was to hold the hearings in private. The claimants

  stated this breached Article 6. Held that it did not –

  sometimes exclusion of the press and public are

  justified.
• Trial by Peers - UK - 12 adults chosen at random, completely impartial Hanif v UK (2012) having a police officer on the jury who

  recognised the prosecution witness breached Article 6(1)
• Implied Obligations or fairness Golder v UK (1975) a prisoner was accused of attacking a police officer whilst inside, was denied access to a solicitor for legal advice before seeing his parole officer.

  Held that his right to access counsel and advice before

  his hearing was implied through Article 6(1). This was a

  violation of his right.
• Equality of Arms - In adversarial proceedings (two opposing sides) both parties should have equal treatment and equal rights in the trial process.

  Failure to disclose all relevant evidence can lead to inequality in court. Duty of full disclosure is not absolute and can be qualified if it is necessary to protect the third party, in the interest of national security or public interest. The Government may try to hold a whole trial in secret- to prevent information coming to light.
• Steel & Morris v UK (2005) – fast-food chain sued the

  claimants for libel (published false statement) when they

  issued leaflets outside one of their restaurants detailing

  the poor quality of the food. Steel and Morris were

  denied legal aid (the case went on for 313 days) and had

  to pursue the case in their own time. Some of their

  claims were true, some false. In UK charged with paying

  £60000 to McDonalds. .
• Steel and Morris V UK (2005) Judgement:The ECtHR found against the UK as the legal process had violated Article 6, due to

  comparative lack of resources and that the laws

  surrounding libel were ‘complex and oppressive’.
• R v Davis (2002) Davis was accused of shooting someone

  at a party. He admitted being present, but claimed to

  have left before the shooting. However, three

  prosecution witnesses identified Davis as the gunman. To

  protect their identity, the judge ordered that they

  would be allowed to give evidence anonymously and were not allowed to be cross-examined. Held – violation of Article 6.
• R v Incedal (2014) The Court of Appeal blocked attempts

  to hold a terror trial fully in secret.
• Access to Court and Right to Participate V and T v UK (1999) V and T had been convicted of murdering a 2 year old boy. They themselves had been 10. They were trialled publically and in an adult court.
• V and T V UK (1999) Judgement - This was held to be in violation of Article 6. The trial of two ten year olds in a public forum, under intense public scrutiny, made the trial unfair: ‘it is essential that a child charged with an offence is dealt with in a manner which

  takes full account of his age, level of maturity and

  intellectual and emotional capacities, and that steps are

  taken to promote his ability to understand and

  participate in the proceedings’.
• Sejdovic v Italy (2006) The claimant had been tried and

  convicted of manslaughter in his absence. The

  respondent said that he had waived his right to appear at

  trial by becoming untraceable. The court held yes,

  violation of Article 6, as it could not be a fair trial if the

  defendant had not been given the right to attend.
• Right to representation – applies to every stage of the investigation. If the accused is denied representation, any evidence obtained may be excluded by section 78 PACE.

  Article 6(3)(c) the right to defend oneself in person or through someone of his/her choosing.

  Benham v UK (1996) legal aid as well as representation

  was necessary where liberty was at stake. Benham had

  been imprisoned for not paying his Poll Tax, the ECtHR

  had stated that his right under Article 6 had been

  violated because he had not been able to get

  representation under the legal aid scheme.
• Presumption of Innocence – covered by

  6(2) and 6(3)

  If the state wishes to punish an individual, they must

  take on the burden of proof. It is not up to the

  defendant to prove his/her innocence.
• DPP v Woolmington (1935) – man charged with killing his

  wife, defended himself and stated that he had not

  intended to shoot her, but scare her back to him, by

  threatening suicide. The gun went off accidentally and

  killed her outright. This surprised the first trial

  members and caused the second trial judge to state that

  the evidence was so great that he needed to prove his

  innocence to walk away free.
• DPP V Woolmington - Finally went to House of Lords who stated: English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of theprosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to... thedefence of insanity and subject also to any statutory

  exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case,

  there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence

  given by either the prosecution or the prisoner... the

  prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner

  is entitled to an acquittal.
• DPP V Woolmington (1935) (Part 3) - No matter what the charge or

  where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must

  prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law

  of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be

  entertained.
• Article 6(2) right to silence – the

  accused should not be compelled to

  answer questions, on pain of punishment

  and the court should not draw adverse

  inferences if the defendant refuses to

  answer

  Condron v UK (2001) – two defendants were heroin

  addicts and remained silent throughout their trial (upon

  the advice of their legal team). The judge allowed the

  jury to consider this when deciding their verdict. Held

  to breach Article 6.