The claimant had been acquitted in a criminal trial. He applied for a defendant’s costs order. He had faced a charge of interfering with witnesses, and in the case against him, a witness did not appear. The court refused the costs, commenting that ‘There is clear evidence on the court papers. The Crown have taken the view that they are not going to compel this witness although there is compelling evidence in respect of those matters.’
Held: The defendant having been acquitted, the judge’s comments and refusal of costs were incompatible with the presumption of innocence.
Citations:
Times 05-Apr-2006, 8866/04, [2006] ECHR 206
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
See Also – Hussain v The United Kingdom ECHR 3-Jun-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241286