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 the prosecutor who presented the case against him were not sufficiently independent.
Held: ‘there is no general requirement under Article 6(1) of prosecutorial independence and impartiality and I see no basis for finding such a requirement to exist in the prison disciplinary context. If a lack of prosecutorial independence or impartiality is said to have affected the prosecutor’s conduct or to have had some other effect on the proceedings, that can be taken into account in determining on the particular facts whether the overall requirement of a fair hearing under Article 6(1) has been met. ‘
Judges:
Richards LJ
Citations:
[2008] EWCA Civ 1089
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 – 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 . .
Appeal from – Haase, Regina (on the Application of) v Independent Adjudicator and others Admn 20-Dec-2007
The claimant prisoner complained that the obligation imposed on him to submit to drugs tests was unlawful. . .
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 – Regina v Stow CMAC 10-May-2005
The defendant appealed his conviction by a naval court-martial. He said that the court-martial was in breach of Article 6 because the naval Prosecuting Authority officer lacked sufficient independence and impartiality, when judged objectively, to . .
Cited – Morris v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Feb-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to general structure of court martial system; No violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to specific complaints; No violation of Art. . .
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 – 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 – Huber v Switzerland ECHR 23-Oct-1990
It was a breach of Article 5 where the judicial power was exercised by a District Attorney whose impartiality was ‘capable of appearing open to doubt’ by reason of his entitlement to intervene in the subsequent criminal proceedings as a . .
Cited – Padovani v Italy ECHR 26-Feb-1993
Hudoc The Court considered the compatibility with Article 6(1) of a magistrate’s dual function of investigation and judgment.
Held: The summary investigative measures carried out by the magistrate in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Prisons, Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276841