The applicant said that the fact that she had not been allowed to attend a bail hearing in person had infringed her article 5-3, 5-4, and 6 rights. She had been arrested and held in custody. The magistrates granted her bail, but she was held in custody after the prosecution immediately appealed. She had been brought late to the court from prison, but the judge had still refused to allow her to attend. She said that in such a matter a judge should properly see a person himself and make his own assessment.
Held: The respondent’s justification was insufficient. ‘the relevant domestic law qualifies a prosecution appeal against bail as a re-hearing of the application for bail, thereby entitling the judge hearing the appeal to remand the accused in custody or to grant bail subject to such conditions as he may deem appropriate . . It follows that the applicant should have been afforded the same guarantees at the prosecution’s appeal as at first instance. Though the Court is mindful of the inherent logistical difficulties involved in ensuring a detainee’s personal attendance at a court hearing, it finds no evidence of any compelling reasons in the present case which might have rendered the applicant’s presence undesirable or impracticable. To the contrary, it is accepted that the applicant’s representatives had made arrangements for her to be present at the court building on the day of the prosecution appeal hearing, and that no inconvenience would have been caused in allowing her to attend.’
Lech Garlicki, P
 ECHR 420,  Crim LR 147, (2010) 51 EHRR 22, 18837/06
European Convention on Human Rights 5-3 5-4 6, Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 SI 2005/384
Statement of facts – Allen v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-May-2006
Statement of facts . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513538