Evaluation of article 6

• Article 6 is a limited right and is therefore protected from state interference
• Article 6(1)


  Protects the rights of the public in both civil + criminal hearings, however, criminal hearings are more protected
• Criminal hearings


  A person's liberty is at stake
• Civil cases


  Still need to be heard within a 'reasonable' time and have access to court
• Limits on legal funding and inequality of bargaining power was criticised by the ECtHR in Steel + Morris v UK when there was no possibility of a fair trial when the defendants were sued by McDonalds
• Jury


  • Effectively protects the defendant as it makes hearing public and the jury should independent and impartial compared to a judge
  • Jury Equity stops the jury's decision from being influenced or changed by the judge
• Article 6 does not specifically protect the right to jury trials as most European countries do not use them
• s.44 CJA 2003 can allow a juryless trial to occur if there is evidence of jury tampering, as seen in Twomey
• Legal funding

  
  

  Article 6(3)(c) Protects the public by saying that if the defendant doesn't have the money to pay for assistance, it should be given for free
• The Government cuts to legal funding in 2012 means less people are eligible for free legal assistance in court
• Interests of justice test


  Defendants have to pass this test to get free legal assistance, if they are deemed able to proceed without a lawyer they won't get legal aid
• Defendant didn't qualify for legal assistance at the Magistrates' Court


  Violation of Article 6 when the defendant was sent to prison for not paying his poll (council) tax (Benham v UK)
• Article 6(2)


  The presumption of innocence is seen as the 'golden thread' in the criminal law (Woolmington v DPP) in that it is one of the main forms of protection of the right to a fair trial
• No one has to prove their innocence and the prosecution hold the burden of proof
• If the defendant raises the defence of insanity or diminished responsibility, the burden is on the defendant as it would be too big a task for the prosecution to prove sanity in every criminal case