It was an infringement of the defendant’s right to a fair trial for the trial judge not to be involved in ex parte applications to exclude evidence. The defect could not be remedied by the same evidence later being presented also to the appeal court on an ex parte basis. There is a general requirement to disclose to the defence all material in the possession of the prosecutor which might be relevant. Though it might be necessary to withhold some material in order to protect the rights of somebody else, but that could only be appropriate where strictly necessary. Here the prosecutor had repeatedly denied the existence of such material, and such behaviour must make for a denial of a fair trial.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
Citations:
Times 03-Jul-2001, 36533/97, (2001) 34 EHRR 833, [2001] ECHR 397
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Botmeh; Regina v Alami CACD 1-Nov-2001
In an appeal, the Crown sought leave to apply ex parte to have make certain information subject of a public interest immunity certificate. The defence argued that that was possible only on a first instance hearing.
Held: The procedures were . .
Cited – Regina v H; Regina v C HL 5-Feb-2004
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only
The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166135