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 engaged the defendants article 6 rights. The need for prison discipline was not a justification for removing such rights. The offences were not purely disciplinary. Though the additional days would not extend the terms served beyond the original periods set down by the courts, the effect was still to extend the actual term to be served. The refusal of legal representation was an infringement of their rights.
Citations:
40086/98, 39665/98, Times 30-Oct-2003, [2003] ECHR 485
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Citing:
See also – Ezeh and Connors v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jul-2002
The applicants were serving prisoners. They had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings in which they had been denied the right to representation. They claimed an infringement of their right to a fair trial.
Held: Both proceedings had . .
Cited by:
Cited – Grieves v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
The claimant had been dismissed from the Royal Navy after a court martial. He . .
Cited – Cooper v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-2003
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.
Cited – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
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 . .
Cited – King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 27-Mar-2012
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Prisons, Human Rights
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186650
