Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction)
The claimant had been dismissed from the RAF after a court martial. He complained that the tribunal was not independent, and that his trial was unfair.
Held: The court rejected the submission that no court martial could act independently. There was sufficient separation between the various roles and the chain of command, and the claimant’s rights were not infringed.
Citations:
48843/99, Times 12-Jan-2004, (2004) 39 EHRR 171, [2003] ECHR 686
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Findlay v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Feb-1997
The applicant complained that the members of a court-martial were appointed by the Convening Officer, who was closely linked to the prosecuting authorities. The members of the court-martial were subordinate in rank to the Convening Officer who had . .
Cited – Ezeh and Connors v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Oct-2003
The applicants were prisoners subject to disciplinary proceedings. The offences were equivalent to criminal charges in domestic law. They were refused legal assistance, and had additional terms added to their sentences.
Held: The charges . .
Cited by:
Cited – Haase, Regina (on the Application of) v Independent Adjudicator and Another CA 14-Oct-2008
The appellant complained that as a prisoner he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for refusing to co-operate with drugs tests. He said that he had not been informed that there would be a penalty if he did not comply. He now complained that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Armed Forces
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190176
