The applicant complained of non-disclosure by the prosecution.
Held: His application failed because the undisclosed material had not been relied on by the prosecution and he had given no sufficiently specific reasons for requesting the material in question. The case concerned a provision in the tax code which was applicable to all citizens. No violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine P1-1
12547/86, (1994) 18 EHRR 54, [1994] ECHR 7
Worldlii, Bailii
European Conventtion on Human Rights 6.1
Human Rights
Cited by:
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.
Cited – 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 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 September 2021; Ref: scu.165306
