(Admissibility – Commission) The claimant, a United States national, said that the proceedings for his extradition from the United Kingdom to the United States infringed article 6(3)(d), because he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses against him in the United Kingdom. Held: Although ‘the tasks of the Magistrates’ Court included the assessment of whether … Continue reading Kirkwood v The United Kingdom: ECHR 12 Mar 1984
The Lord Advocate appealed against three decisions as to the use to be made of interviews where the detainees had not been given access to lawyers. In each case the prosecutor now appealed after their convictions had been overturned in the light of the decision in Cadder. Held: (Lord Kerr dissenting) The prosecutor’s appeals failed. … Continue reading Jude v Her Majesty’s Advocate: SC 23 Nov 2011
FTTTx INCOME TAX-PENALTY-Failure to produce documents in accordance with section 19 TMA 1970 order – daily penalties imposed under section 97AA(1)(b)TMA 1970 – was the penalty a criminal charge within the meaning given by Strasbourg cases – no – was article 6(3)(a) ECHR engaged – no – did the penalty determination comply with section 100 … Continue reading Flaxmode Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Jan 2010
The claimant alleged that his treatment in the police station had been wrongful. His solicitor, representing two clients, had refused to attend the interview with the claimant until he had seen the second client. There was a scene and the solicitor was excluded. The claimant said that this had unlawfully imposed a condition on his … Continue reading McDonagh, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary: Admn 19 Dec 2013
(Grand Chamber) The applicant had been taken into custody before he was interrogated during his detention by police officers of the anti-terrorism branch of the Izmir Security Directorate. Held: There had been a violation of art 6(3)(c) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in conjunction with art 6(1), because … Continue reading Salduz v Turkey: ECHR 27 Nov 2008
The applicants were serving prisoners. They had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings in which they had been denied the right to representation. They claimed an infringement of their right to a fair trial. Held: Both proceedings had resulted in the extension of the respective prison sentences. The rules gave the governor discretion to allow … Continue reading Ezeh and Connors v The United Kingdom: ECHR 15 Jul 2002
The applicant had complained that, after his arrest he had been refused adequate access to a lawyer. He had not been allowed to see his solicitor for two days, and only then in the presence of a police officer. No inferences had been drawn from his silence in the period before access to his lawyer, … Continue reading Brennan v The United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Oct 2001
The defendants in a forthcoming trial had applied for disclosure of surveillance tapes (some 15,000 hours) made during the investigations anticipating an application for a finding of abuse of process. Some had been served, but the prosecutor now appealed asking whether the protection of the defendants’ human rights required the disclosures. Judges: Rose VP LJ, … Continue reading Regina v Crown Prosecution Service, Re Interlocutory Application: CACD 7 Sep 2005
ECHR (Commission) Article 6, paragraph I of the Convention(a) A virulent press campaign can, in certain circumstances, adversely affect the fairness of a trial and involve the State’s responsibility, particularly if it is sparked off bv one of the State’s organs.(b) Alleged failure by the public prosecutor’s office to include in the file and communicate … Continue reading Jespers v Belgium: ECHR 1981
Paragraph (3)(d) rights did not apply when a witness was being questioned by the investigating judge, but only at trial. Citations: (1984) 37 DR 15 Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)(d) Jurisdiction: Human Rights Cited by: Cited – Horncastle and Others, Regina v SC 9-Dec-2009 Each defendant said they had not received a fair … Continue reading Ferrari-Bravo v Italy: ECHR 1984
Article 6(3)(d) of the European Convention does impose an absolute prohibition on the admission of hearsay evidence against criminal defendants. Citations: [2003] QB 90, [2002] EWCA Crim 990 Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)(d) Cited by: Cited – Grant v The Queen PC 16-Jan-2006 (Jamaica) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder saying that … Continue reading Regina v D: CACD 2002
Paragraph (3)(d) rights applied at the trial and not when a witness was being questioned by the police. Citations: (1979) 17 DR 231 Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)(d) Cited by: Cited – Horncastle and Others, Regina v SC 9-Dec-2009 Each defendant said they had not received a fair trial in that the court … Continue reading X v Germany: ECHR 1979
The defendant challenged the obligatory requirement that evidence given by a person under 17 in sex or violent offence cases must normally be given by video link. Held: The purpose of the section was to improve the quality of the evidence presented to a court. There was no absolute right for a defendant to be … Continue reading D (A Minor), Regina (on the Application of) v Camberwell Green Youth Court: HL 27 Jan 2005
No Anonymity for Witnessses in Criminal Trial K was convicted of armed robbery on the basis of statements of anonymous witnesses. He was unable to question those witnesses at any stage. Being unaware of the identity of the witnesses deprived K of the very particulars which would have enabled him to demonstrate the witnesses unreliability. … Continue reading Kostovski v The Netherlands: ECHR 20 Nov 1989
(Scotland) The appellant had been interviewed by police without being offered access to a solicitor. He complained that the interview and information obtained only through it had been used to found the prosecution. Held: The admission of the evidence may not infringe the defendant’s human rights. However, there is no absolute rule that the fruits … Continue reading Her Majesty’s Advocate v P: SC 6 Oct 2011
(Grand Chamber) – Press Release . .
(Fifth Section) The claimant said that having been arrested by police, their treatment of him amounted to torture.
Held: Iit was not necessary to rule on the Government’s preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It held, . .
(Grand Chamber) The claimant said that police treatment during his interview had amounted to torture.
Held: The Salduz principles were not restricted to the failure to provide access to a lawyer during interview. There is no clear consensus . .
The defendants appealed against their convictions after admission of secret tape recordings made by the police in breach, said the defendants of the 2000 Act and unlawful. The recordings had been in the police van. The Crown said that this was not a . .
(i) A decision of the Secretary of State not to grant indefinite leave to remain to a person subject to the restricted leave policy (‘the RL policy’) does not normally engage Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, Article 8 may be engaged by a decision to refuse to grant indefinite leave … Continue reading MBT, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Restricted Leave; ILR; Disability Discrimination): UTIAC 13 Dec 2019
UTIAC Prior to the new immigration rules (HC 194) introduced on 9 July 2012, cases involving Article 8 ECHR ordinarily required a two-stage assessment: (1) first to assess whether the decision appealed against was in accordance with the immigration rules; (2) second to assess whether the decision was contrary to the appellant’s Article 8 rights.The … Continue reading MF (Article 8 – New Rules) Nigeria: UTIAC 31 Oct 2012
The court was asked as to the lack of legal assistance while in police custody and the use at the trial of incriminating statements that had been made at that stage. Held: The court repeated the proposition that was first stated in Salduz, that the rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced … Continue reading Sharkunov and Mezentsev v Russia: ECHR 10 Jun 2010
(Final Execution) The Court having found the respondent to have been in breach of the claimants’ human rights in having denied them access to legal advice on arrest for a period of up to 48 hours, now concluded that necessary measures had been taken and the case was closed. Citations: [2010] ECHR 1890, 18731/91 Links: … Continue reading Murray v The United Kingdom: ECHR 15 Sep 2010
The claimant challenged his conviction after he had not been given access to a lawyer whilst detained and after, during the appeal process, prosecution material was submitted to the court which was not shown to him. Nevertheless he had remained silent at interview. Held: There had been a breach of article 6(3)(c) in conjunction with … Continue reading Dayanan v Turkey: ECHR 13 Oct 2009
It is unlawful for a court, as a public authority for the purposes of s. 6(3) of the 1998 Act, to act in a way incompatible with defendant’s rights enshrined in article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Judges: Lord Roger Citations: [2005] 2 Cr Ap R 32 … Continue reading Regina v Mustaq: CACD 2005
The applicant was questioned by the police as a witness in connection with the attempt to detonate four bombs at separate points in the London public transport system two weeks after the bombings that took place on 7 July 2005. He had been approached by two police officers who took him to a police station. … Continue reading Abdurahman v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Sep 2010
(Scotland) The appellant had variously been convicted in reliance on evidence gathered at different stages before arrest, but in each case without being informed of any right to see a solicitor. The court was asked, as a devolution issue, at what point the duty to allow access to a solicitor arose, and what use might … Continue reading Ambrose v Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc: SC 6 Oct 2011
(First Section) The claimant complaned that he had not been allowed access to a lawyer when being questioned by police when he was not under arrest. He had been stopped driving home from work and his car inspected by the police after reports of workers stealing diesel from their service vehicles. Two cans of diesel … Continue reading Zaichenko v Russia: ECHR 18 Feb 2010
(Fifth Section) The applicant complained, in particular, that his continued pre-trial detention had been unjustified and that he had not been legally represented in the early stages of the criminal proceedings. Held: The court summarised the general principles that are to be found in Salduz. It stated that, as a rule, access to a lawyer … Continue reading Borotyuk v Ukraine: ECHR 16 Dec 2010
(First Section) The applicant was interrogated while he was under arrest in police custody. He asked for the assistance of a lawyer during his interrogation, but this was disregarded by the investigator who proceeded to question him. It was argued that his decision then to confess his guilt to the investigator constituted an implied waiver … Continue reading Pishchalnikov v Russia: ECHR 24 Sep 2009
The applicant complained that he had been arrested and detained by anti-terrorist police. At his trial evidence of his statement was challenged on the basis that it had been extracted from him under duress and that he had not had access to a lawyer. Citations: 36391/02, [2007] ECHR 332 Links: Bailii Statutes: European Convention on … Continue reading Salduz v Turkey: ECHR 26 Apr 2007
The claimant had been was arrested on his way home from a protest rally. He was made aware of his rights and expressly declined a lawyer. Held: As it was his own choice not to have a lawyer, the authorities could not be held responsible for the fact that he was not represented in the … Continue reading Galstyan v Armenia: ECHR 15 Nov 2007
(Gibraltar) The appellants sought to argue that the failure to allow an acquitted defendant any possible order for costs was a breach of the Constitution. Held: Section 8 of the Constitution, like its analogue article 6 of the European Convention, seeks to guarantee the procedural fairness of the criminal process. Though the Convention is not … Continue reading Her Majesty’s Attorney General for Gibraltar v Shimidzu (Berllaque, Intervenor): PC 28 Jun 2005
The defendant was convicted of fraud charges. He sought to have excluded statements made in interview on the basis that they had been obtained by oppressive behaviour by the police. His wife was very seriously ill in hospital and he had made the statement so that he could get out to see her. The police … Continue reading Regina v Mushtaq: HL 21 Apr 2005
The appellants appealed rejection of their application for judicial review. They were long term residents in a nursing home, which the respondents had decided to close. Held: Though the respondent did exercise some public functions, and its activities were in part paid for by public authorities, its activity of providing residential accommodation was not a … Continue reading Regina (Heather and Another) v Leonard Cheshire Foundation: CA 21 Mar 2002
The defendants appealed convictions for murder saying that the court had had read to it the statements of four witnesses who refused to attend for fear, having been intimidated. Other witnesses had been unco-operative and had been treated by the prosecution as hostile. Held: The appeal failed. The appellants’ rights under Article 6 were in … Continue reading Sellick and Sellick, Regina v: CACD 14 Mar 2005
The care worker’s appeal failed. The system for disciplining care workers and placing them on lists was required to be human rights compliant. Lord Justice May said: ‘There is an obvious and unchallenged public interest in having an appropriate system for protecting vulnerable adults and children from the risk of harm from unsuitable carers. It … Continue reading Regina (Wright) v Secretary of State for Health: CA 2 Jan 2008
A Dutch court had convicted the applicants of attempted manslaughter and robbery on the basis of statements made, before their trial, by anonymous police officers, none of whom gave evidence before the Regional Court or the investigating judge. The Court of Appeal referred the case to the investigating judge who arranged hearings in which he, … Continue reading Van Mechelen And Others v The Netherlands: ECHR 23 Apr 1997
The applicant had been denied legal advice for 48 hours after he had been taken into custody. Held: There had been a violation of article 6(1) read with article 6(3)(c). However, it was not a breach of human rights to draw inferences from the silence of a defendant. The privilege against self-incrimination is not an … Continue reading Murray v The United Kingdom: ECHR 8 Feb 1996
The applicant had been questioned several times without access to a lawyer while he was in police custody. Held: Overall there had been no breach of article 6(1). The right set out in article 6(3)(c) is one element, among others, of the concept of a fair trial in criminal proceedings in article 6(1). The way … Continue reading Imbrioscia v Switzerland: ECHR 24 Nov 1993
‘under the principle of equality of arms, as one of the features of the wider concept of a fair trial, each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a disadvantage vis-a-vis his opponent ‘ and ‘the contracting states have greater latitude when dealing … Continue reading Dombo Beheer BV v The Netherlands: ECHR 27 Oct 1993
S had been convicted on the basis of the evidence of drug addicts and in the situation where there was no opportunity to confront the witness. Held: ‘The court reiterates that the taking of evidence is governed primarily by the rules of domestic law, and that it is in principle for the national courts to … Continue reading Saidi v France: ECHR 20 Sep 1993
Is it is an abuse of process or unfair or in breach of Articles 6(3)(c), 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights for the prosecution to rely on the evidence of an interpreter, who had acted as an interpreter at the police station after the arrest of a defendant (when the defendant … Continue reading Bozkurt v Thames Magistrates’ Court: Admn 14 May 2001
The court was asked whether in a complaint under the Act, conduct before the Act could be considered. Held: The Tribunal could rely on misconduct which had taken place, or the relevant provider’s opinion had been formed, before the commencement of the Act. Stanley Burnton J said: ‘If the 2000 Act operates unfairly, the court … Continue reading Regina (Wright) v Secretary of State for Health: QBD 2008
The court has a discretion to refuse to accept written evidence from a witness abroad who had refused to come here for fear of reprisals, and particularly so where the prosecution had failed to take advantage of procedures which would have allowed the defence to cross examine the witness. Citations: Times 07-Oct-1998 Statutes: European Convention … Continue reading Regina v Radak; Regina v Adjei; Regina v Butler-Rees; Regina v Meghjee: CACD 7 Oct 1998
The claimant’s son had been stabbed to death. She challenged the refusal of the coroner to continue with the inquest with a view to examining the responsibility of any of the police in having failed to protect him. Held: The question amounted to asking whether the coroner’s decision on the resumption should have been affected … Continue reading Hurst, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v London Northern District Coroner: HL 28 Mar 2007
Only criminal charges attract the additional protections under article 6(2) and 6(3). Insofar as these provisions apply to ‘everyone charged with a criminal offence’ it is well established in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights that this concept is co-extensive with the concept of the determination of any criminal charge. As to … Continue reading Lutz v Germany: ECHR 25 Aug 1987
These appeals concern the statutory provisions governing the eligibility for compensation of persons convicted of a criminal offence where their conviction is subsequently quashed (or they are pardoned) because of the impact of fresh evidence. It was argued that the failure to make payment amounted to a denial of the right to the presumption of … Continue reading Hallam, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 30 Jan 2019
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the recovery of possession interfered with their right respect for their family … Continue reading Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others: HL 8 Mar 2006
Civil recovery orders had been made against the applicant. He had been accused and acquitted of drug trafficking allegations in Europe, but the judge had been persuaded that he had no proper explanation for the accumulation of his wealth, and had rejected his evidence as unreliable. Held: The defendant’s appeal failed. The making of an … Continue reading Gale and Another v Serious Organised Crime Agency: SC 26 Oct 2011
The defendants appealed convictions for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16. They claimed that the availability to a defendant under 23 of a special defence which was not available to them because of their own age was discriminatory. Held: the absence of the defence was not discriminatory. A similar defence was available to … Continue reading Regina v Kirk; Regina v Russell: CACD 31 May 2002
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder saying that the admission of an unsworn statement by one witness and the non-admission of another similar statement who did not either attend court was unconstitutional. He shot the victim 13 times with hollow point bullets. He claimed self defence, and drove straight to the police station … Continue reading Grant v The Queen: PC 16 Jan 2006
Ineta Ziemele, P 67318/09 22226/12 – Admissibility Decision, [2013] ECHR 578 Bailii European Convention on Human Rights, Criminal Justice Act 2003 46(3) Human Rights Citing: Legal Summary – Twomey, Cameron and Guthrie v The United Kingdom (Legal Summary) ECHR 28-May-2013 ECHR Criminal proceedingsArticle 6-1Fair hearingEquality of armsIndependent tribunalTrial by judge sitting alone owing to risk … Continue reading Twomey, Cameron And Guthrie v The United Kingdom (Judgment): ECHR 28 May 2013
The appellants had been convicted of murder, it being said that they had disposed of her body at sea. They now said that the delay between being first questioned and being charged infringed their rights to a trial within a reasonable time, and questioned whether they had has an impartial judge, he having also conducted … Continue reading O’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate No 2: SC 13 Jun 2013
Each defendant said they had not received a fair trial in that the court had admitted written evidence of a witness he had not been allowed to challenge. The witnesses had been victims, two of whom had died before trial. It was suggested that the court must implement the ECHR decision in Al-Khawaja. Held: The … Continue reading Horncastle and Others, Regina v: SC 9 Dec 2009
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the Convention the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself are generally recognised international … Continue reading Saunders v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Dec 1996
Statement without lawyer access was inadmissible The accused complained that he had been convicted for assault and breach of the peace on the basis of a statement made by him during an interview with the police where, under the 1995 Act, he had been denied access to a lawyer. Held: The section must be read … Continue reading Cadder v Her Majesty’s Advocate: SC 26 Oct 2010
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made. Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards of evidence therefore applied, and hearsay evidence was admissible. Nevertheless, the test as to whether it was … Continue reading Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others: HL 17 Oct 2002
The appellant complained that after arrest, though he had been advised of his right to legal advice, and had declined the offer, it was still wrong to have his subsequent interview relied upon at his trial. Held: It was not incompatible with Article 6(1) and 6(3)(c) for the Lord Advocate to lead and rely upon … Continue reading McGowan (Procurator Fiscal) v B: SC 23 Nov 2011
The House was asked whether a private care home when providing accommodation and care to a resident under arrangements with a local authority the 1948 Act, is performing ‘functions of a public nature’ for the purposes of section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and as such a ‘public authority’ subject to Convention rights … Continue reading YL v Birmingham City Council and Others: HL 20 Jun 2007
Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal from prison. The legal services department of the Prison service relayed the notices to … Continue reading Lukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland: SC 23 May 2012
The Office appealed against decisions ordering it to release information about the gateway reviews for the proposed identity card system, claiming a qualified exemption from disclosure under the 2000 Act. Held: The decision was set aside for breaching the rule against impugning an action of Parliament. The minister had made a statement as to the … Continue reading Office of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner and Another: Admn 11 Apr 2008
The claimant had been found to have been wrongfully detained under section 3. He appealed against rejection of his claim for judicial review and for damages. The court found that his detention was lawful until declared otherwise. He argued that the restriction on compensation under the 1983 Act contravened the ECHR. Held: The detention was … Continue reading TTM v London Borough of Hackney and Others: CA 14 Jan 2011
A judgment summons, issued was issued by the wife to enforce a lump sum order made against her husband in their divorce proceedings. The judge had performed his statutory duty which included having to satisfy himself under s. 25 of the 1973 Act of the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources of the … Continue reading Mubarak v Mubarak: CA 2001
In each case, the applicant sought to argue that documents which had actually been received on a certain date should not be deemed to have been served on a different day because of the rule.
Held: The coming into force of the Human Rights Act . .
A suspect’s position will have been substantially affected as soon as the suspicion against him is being seriously investigated and the prosecution case compiled: ‘The manner in which article 6(1) and (3)(c) is to be applied during the preliminary . .
