Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1 (fair hearing); Costs and expenses – claim withdrawn
The lower court had had taken evidence in public from the applicant and other witnesses. The appellate court had held a public oral hearing at which the applicant was represented but at which he gave no evidence.
Held: That did not infringe Article 6. ‘ . . .it is necessary to examine whether in the light of the Supreme Court’s role and the nature of the issues to be decided by that court there has been a violation in the particular circumstances of the case. In carrying out this examination, the Court will confine itself to consider whether the proceedings in the present case were fair . . .’
[2001] 32 EHRR 3, 16206/90, [1996] ECHR 4
Worldlii, Bailii
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Dudson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Lord Chief Justice Admn 21-Nov-2003
The applicant had been sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. He sought a judicial review of the Lord Chief Justice’s recommendation to the Home Secretary for the minimum term he was to serve.
Held: In exercising this function, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 September 2021; Ref: scu.165403
