The Procurator General had submitted to the Supreme Court comments on a plea of nullity made by a defendant without bringing them to the attention of the accused.
Held: The principle of equality of arms had not been respected in the proceedings before the Supreme Court. The principle of the equality of arms does not depend on quantifiable unfairness flowing from a procedural inequality. It is a matter for the defence to assess whether a submission deserves a reaction. It is therefore unfair for the prosecution to make submissions to a court without the knowledge of the defence. There had been no violation of article 6(1) where there had been no oral hearing of the applicant’s appeal by the Supreme Court which it rejected summarily on the ground that the appeal was manifestly without merit. The Court was not satisfied that the appeal had raised questions of fact bearing on the assessment of the applicant’s guilt or innocence that would have necessitated a hearing.
17358/90, [1996] ECHR 10, (1996) 24 EHRR 84
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Josef Fischer v Austria ECHR 17-Jan-2002
The applicant had been convicted of criminal offences. He submitted an appeal by way of a plea of nullity. He complained that the Appeal court dealt with his application without serving on him a copy of the advice given to the Court by the . .
Cited – Dudson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Jul-2005
The defendant had committed a murder when aged 16, and after conviction sentenced to be detailed during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. His tarriff had been set at 18 years, reduced to 16 years after review.
Held: ‘What is at issue is the general . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 September 2021; Ref: scu.165417