The court addressed the extent to which the admission of closed material was compatible with the fair hearing requirements of article 5.4, challenging lawfulness of detention, which imported the same rights as article 6.1 in its criminal aspect. The commission had made a declaration on incompatibility.
Held: Non-disclosure of evidence could not properly go so far as to deny the defendant knowledge of the essence of the case against him, at least where he was at risk of consequences as severe as those normally imposed under a control order.
Citations:
3455/05, [2008] ECHR 113
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights, Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 21
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
See Also – A and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Feb-2009
(Grand Chamber) The applicants had been subjected to severe restrictions. They were foreign nationals suspected of terrorist involvement, but could not be deported for fear of being tortured. The UK had derogated from the Convention to put the . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF AN and AE (No 3) HL 10-Jun-2009
The applicants complained that they had been made subject to non-derogating control orders as suspected terrorists, but that the failure to inform them of the allegations or evidence against them was unfair and infringed their human rights. The . .
Cited – A and others v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-May-2008
The court considered complaints by the applicants as to the system of control orders imposed on them. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Evidence
Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.264293