The applicant complained that her criminal trial had been conducted unfairly, insofar as the judge had interfered so heavily as to make it difficult for her to present her case. The English Court of Appeal had criticised the judge, but concluded that the result remained fair.
Held: Though the trial was subject to criticism, she had not been prevented from putting her case fully, and no breach of article 6.1 was found. Her complaint under article 13 need not be considered since the standards applied would be less demanding than those under article 6. ‘The central question raised is whether the nature and frequency of the trial judge’s interventions, combined with the deficiencies found by the Court of Appeal in his summing-up, were such as to render the proceedings against the applicant unfair. The Court recalls that, in determining issues of fairness of proceedings for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention, the Court must consider the proceedings as a whole, including the decision of the appellate court (see, for example, the above-mentioned Edwards judgment, ss 34).’
Judges:
J-P Costa, P and Judges W. Fuhrmann, L. Loucaides, F. Tulkens, K. Jungwiert, Sir Nicolas Bratza and K. Traja.
Section Registrar S. Dolle
Citations:
Times 04-Jan-2002, 43373/98, [2002] 34 EHRR 31, [2001] ECHR 861, [2001] ECHR 870
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1 and 13
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Followed – Cairnstores Ltd Generics (UK) Ltd and Another v Aktiebolaget Hassle CA 22-Oct-2002
Two patents had been invaildated for obviousness. They related to coatings on medicinal pills. The patent holder said the judge’s interruptions indicated bias.
Held: The sumissions were unjustified. The interventions were by no means . .
Cited – Michel v The Queen (The Court of Appeal of Jersey) PC 4-Nov-2009
michel_rPC2009
(Jersey) The defendant appealed, complaining that the number and character of the judge’s interventions in his trial for money laundering had made it unfair.
Held: The conviction was quashed and the case remitted for a decision as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167304