The applicant was fined under the domestic Minor Offences Act for accusing his neighbours, without justification, of causing a nuisance. The government relied on the modesty of the punishment capable of being imposed and the fact that the offence did not give rise to a criminal record as distinguishing it from offences within the criminal law.
Held: The general character of the legal provision infringed by the applicant together with the deterrent and punitive purpose of the penalty imposed on him, were sufficient to show that the offence in question was, in terms of Article 6 of the Convention, criminal in nature. The three criteria were not cumulative and that it sufficed that the offence in question should, by its nature, be criminal from the point of view of the Convention, or should have made the person concerned liable to a sanction which, by its nature and degree of severity, belonged in general to the criminal sphere. At the same time a cumulative approach could be adopted where the separate analysis of each criterion did not make it possible to reach a clear conclusion as to the existence of a criminal charge.
26138/95, (2001) 33 EHRR 40, [1998] ECHR 82
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Gora and others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and others CA 11-Apr-2003
gora_custCA2003
The appellants challenged decisions of the VAT and Duties Tribunal after seizure of their goods, and in particular whether the cases had been criminal or civil cases and following Roth, whether the respondent’s policy had been lawful and . .
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 – Regina (McCann and Others) v Manchester Crown Court CA 9-Mar-2001
Proceedings applying for an anti-social behaviour order, were properly civil proceedings, with civil standards of evidence, and the Human Rights Act provisions relating to criminal proceedings, were not applicable either. The section included acts . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 August 2021; Ref: scu.165651
