The court held that ‘the medical experts did actually cause a certain amount of delay in the conduct of the proceedings,’ and rejected the complaint under article 5(3): ‘[T]he delay due to the medical reports, although improper, does not in itself provide a sufficient basis for a finding that there was a violation of article 5(3) of the Convention. The total length of the detention pending trial in this case-two years, three months and nineteen days-does not appear excessive in view of the seriousness of the charges and the number of matters requiring investigation.’
Citations:
35776/97, [2002] ECHR 632, (2003) 36 EHRR 854, [2002] ECHR 637
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – O v Crown Court at Harrow HL 26-Jul-2006
The claimant said that his continued detention after the custody time limits had expired was an infringement of his human rights. He faced continued detention having been refused bail because of his arrest on a grave charge, having a previous . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.213204
