Article 6:

• Lack of public funding: One of the key provisions for a

  fair trial under article 6 section

  3(c) is the ability for someone to

  defend themselves through legal

  assistance, and if they can't afford

  it, they must be given it free when

  in the interests of justice (i.e when

  they could go to prison). Where

  this right to be maintained within

  society, it would make article 6

  extremely effective. The previous

  legal aid schemes had been

  extremely beneficial for fairness

  within the justice system.
• However, in 2012 these schemes

  faced drastic cuts of money. This

  means that a fewer and fewer

  people will now become eligible

  for legal aid under the conditions

  set out in LASPO. This shows

  how article 6 cannot be wholly

  effective in protecting everyone's

  rights as, if many people who

  would've previously been entitled

  to legal aid will now be forced into

  either no representation or

  spending more than they can

  afford on it. This is allowed for by

  the article as there is no absolute

  right for legal aid, so the cuts

  within LASPO do not violate the

  convention.
• And thus, more people's ability for the right to a fair trial and equity of arms will be breached and they could face an unfair trial. However, the Bentham

  v UK case does show that legal

  aid should still be provided for

  those who face penal and other

  harsh sentences. And thus, some

  protection does remain at least. If

  cuts continue to increase - which

  they're likely to do with rising

  living costs- then more people will

  be invalidated from legal aid and

  article 6 will be diminished even

  more in terms of effectiveness.
• Use of juries: One way in which article 6 is effective at protecting our rights is through section one and the

  requirement for a independent

  and impartial tribunal. This

  includes judges, magistrates and

  juries: the most effective of these

  is the presence of an impartial

  jury. Not only are they representative of democracy by promoting the opinion of the public, but juries are a symbol for impartiality. The manner in which they're selected- a random

  sampling from the electoral register- allows for complete independence.
• A jury is an

  effective way of ensuring article 6

  works well as they are less likely

  to be biased through consistent

  case-hardening than a judge or

  magistrate. A completely random

  selection of 12 jurors provides a

  completely unbiased outlook on

  the case, which is effective at

  ensuring the defendant remains

  innocent until proven guilty.

  Furthermore, even in private

  hearings like T and V, it provides a

  public element to the case.

  Where a case is heared publicly,

  its less likely to be controlled by

  external influences and is

  therefore more fair.
• There are also

  several protections on jury

  impartiality and ways in which a

  jury can be changed (i.e for

  cause) where necessary in the

  UK. And thus, Article 6 is

  manoeuvrable to make sure it is

  often effective in relation to juries.
• However, a downside of the jury

  system as an impartial tribunal (as

  defined under 6(1)) is shown

  under s44 CJA 2003 where a

  judge only trial can occur. This

  was used in Twomey after there

  was evidence of 'nobbling'.

  Whilst it does provide more

  fairness than a biased jury, it does

  limit the protections of article 6. If

  a case is heard by a single,

  possibly case-hardened, judge

  than it is less likely to be fair and

  open than it should be. And thus,

  article 6 isn't always effective

  under 6(1) as the right to jury trial

  for serious cases isn't consistent.
• Evidence and equality of arms: Article 6, section 3 provides a list

  of 5 minimum rights which the

  court must uphold in order to

  assure a fair trial, including: to be

  informed promptly, have

  adequate facilities and time to

  prepare a defence, have legal

  assistance, have a free interpreter

  and the chance to examine

  witnesses. These are all minimum

  rights, meaning absolutely

  everybody who goes to court for

  a trial is entitled to these if they

  so need it.
• And thus, article 6

  provides a basic basis for all trials

  in the UK which can be relied on.

  These allow for a range of people

  from different backgrounds,

  wealth classes, cultures and

  languages to access the court in

  their domestic country. And thus,

  this section especially is

  extremely effective in the

  protection of our rights. These

  guarantee at least somewhat of a

  fair trial to occur in all

  circumstances.
• The longer-term future for

  solicitors’ firms practising in the

  area is not promising because

  solicitors don’t want to practise in

  criminal law as it is not as well

  remunerated as other areas of

  law. Also there is unsociable work

  hours; they can be called out

  during the night to attend a police

  station and then go to court the

  following morning. This means

  that this right under section 3 will

  be less likely to be complied with

  due to claimants not being able

  to receive the correct legal

  support with their cases.