Ekbatani v Sweden: ECHR 26 May 1988

The defendant was convicted of threatening a civil servant. His appeal was dealt with without a hearing in the Court of Appeal. The Court confirmed the decision.
Held: Though the Court confirmed that if there had been a public hearing at first instance, and the absence of a public hearing before a second or third instance tribunal might be justified, and since the Court of Appeal had to make what a ‘full assessment of the question of the applicant’s guilt or innocence’ its re-examination of the conviction ought to have comprised a full rehearing. ‘ . . ..it flows from the notion of a fair trial that a person charged with a criminal offence should, as a general principle, be entitled to be present at the trial hearing’.

10465/83, [1988] 13 EHRR 504, [1988] ECHR 2, 10563/83, [1988] ECHR 6, [1988] ECHR 2, [1988] ECHR 6
Worldlii, Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited by:
CitedLobban, Regina v CACD 7-May-2004
The defendant appealed his conviction. A witness statement had been read, but he had wanted to cross examine her. The court was satisfied that her refusal to give evidence in person was through fear.
Held: In making the decision, the judge had . .
CitedA and Others, Regina v; Regina v The Crown Court at the Central Criminal Court ex parte A Times Newspapers Ltd etc CACD 13-Jan-2006
The defendant was to be charged with offences associated with terrorism. He had sought stay of the trial as an abuse of process saying that he had been tortured by English US and Pakistani authorities. The judge made an order as to what parts of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.165001