Hudoc The claimants challenged anti-terrorist legislation introduced by the respondent. They complained that it violated the article 6(1) right of the applicants to remain silent and not incriminate themselves, and also to violate the presumption of innocence guaranteed by article 6(2) because of the close link, in this context, between it and the rights guaranteed by article 6(1).
Held: The Court rejected the Irish Government’s contention that the enactment in question was justified by its security and public order concerns since the enactment extinguished the very essence of the applicants’ rights to silence and against self-incrimination.
[2000] ECHR 675, 34720/97, (2000) 33 EHRR 264, [2000] ECHR 684
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 August 2021; Ref: scu.166007