

Links: Home \| swarblaw - law discussions		swarb.co.uk - law index These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases. Â
		Human Rights - From: 1992 To: 1992 This page lists 101 cases, and was prepared on 28 July 2015. Â Reyntjens -v- Belgium (1992) 73 DR 136 1992 ECHR Human Rights (Commission) ". . The obligation to carry an identity card and to show it to the police when requested to do so does not as such constitute an interference in a person's private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention". 1 Citers Â Regina -v- Genereux (1992) 88 DLR (4th) 110 1992 L’Heureux-Dubeè J, Lamer CJC Human Rights, Commonwealth, Armed Forces (Canada) The court discussed the human rights compliance of the courts martial system, and whether the trial of a soldier on a criminal charge by a General Court Martial met the requirements of s 11(d) of the Charter. L’Heureux-Dubeè J said: "When measuring the General Court Martial against the requirements of the Charter, certain considerations must be kept in mind. Among those considerations are that the armed forces depend upon the strictest discipline in order to function effectively and that alleged instances of non-adherence to rules of the military need to be tried within the chain of command". Lamer CJC said: "The essential conditions of independence, or basic mechanisms by which independence can be achieved, were discussed by Le Dain J. in Valente. He emphasized that a flexible standard must be applied under s. 11(d). Since s. 11(d) must be applied to a variety of tribunals, it is inappropriate to define strict formal conditions as the constitutional requirement for an independent tribunal. Mechanisms that are suitable and necessary to achieve the independence of the superior courts, for example, may be highly inappropriate in the context of a different tribunal. For this reason, the court chose to define three essential conditions of independence that can be applied flexibly, being capable of attainment by a variety of legislative schemes or formulas . . Similarly, s. 11(d) of the Charter requires that a decision-maker have a basic degree of financial security. The substance of this condition is as follows . . `The essence of such security is that the right to salary and pension should be established by law and not be subject to arbitrary interference by the executive in a manner that could affect judicial independence.' Within the limits of this requirement, however, the federal and provincial governments must retain the authority to design specific plans of remuneration that are appropriate to different types of tribunals. Consequently, a variety of schemes may equally satisfy the requirement of financial security, provided that the essence of the condition is protected." Lamer CJC also said: "I emphasize that an individual who wishes to challenge the independence of a tribunal for the purposes of s. 11(d) need not prove an actual lack of independence. Instead, the test for this purpose is the same as the test for determining whether a decision-maker is biased. The question is whether an informed and reasonable person would perceive the tribunal as independent." Â Marcel -v- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1992] Ch 225; [1992] 1 All ER 72 1992 CA Nolan LJ, Dillon LJ, Sir Christopher Slade Police, Intellectual Property, Human Rights A writ of subpoena ad duces tecum had been issued requiring the production by the police for use in civil proceedings of documents seized during a criminal fraud investigation. The victim of the fraud needed them to pursue his own civil case. Held: The court discharged the injunction granted at first instance and held that the police were obliged to comply with a subpoena which could only be resisted on grounds which would have been available to the true owner of the documents. The statutory powers given to the police are coupled with a public law duty. The precise extent of the duty is difficult to define in general terms beyond saying that the powers must be exercised only in the public interest and with due regard to the rights of individuals. In the context of the seizure and retention of documents, the public law duty is combined with a private law duty of confidentiality towards the owner of the documents. Dillon LJ said: "Even where a subpoena has been served, the police should not disclose the seized documents to the advisers of a party to civil proceedings in advance of the attendance at court required by the subpoena, unless at the least the police have first given to the true owner of the documents notice of the service of the subpoena and of the wish of the police to produce the documents in advance of the attendance at court required by the subpoena, and have given the true owner a reasonable opportunity to state his objections, if any, to that course." and "The responsibilities which are by law and custom entrusted to the police are wide and varied. The powers conferred upon them must be considered against the background of those responsibilities. If the hands of the police were too strictly tied with regard to the use of documents and information acquired under compulsory powers then the public interest would suffer . . The statutory powers given to the police are plainly coupled with a public law duty. The precise extent of that duty is, I think, difficult to define in general terms beyond saying that the powers must be exercised only in the public interest and with due regard to the rights of individuals." Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson VC at first instance had said that section 22 referred to the duration of retention, not to its purpose: "However, there manifestly must be some limitation on the purposes for which seized documents can be used. Search and seizure under statutory powers constitute fundamental infringements of the individual's immunity from interference by the state with his property and privacy – fundamental human rights. Where there is a public interest which requires some impairment of those rights, Parliament legislates to permit such impairment. But, in the absence of clear words, in my judgment Parliament cannot be assumed to have legislated so as to interfere with the basic rights of the individual to a greater extent than is necessary to secure the protection of that public interest. In the case of this Act, it is plainly necessary to trench upon the individual's right to his property and privacy for the purpose of permitting the police to investigate and prosecute crime; hence the powers conferred by Part II of the Act. But in my judgment Parliament should not be taken to have authorised use of seized documents for any purpose the police think fit. For example, could the police provide copies of seized documents to the Press save in cases where publicity is necessary for the pursuit of their criminal investigations? . . In my judgment, subject to any express statutory provision in other Acts, the police are authorised to seize, retain and use documents only for public purposes related to the investigation and prosecution of crime and the return of stolen property to the true owner. Those investigations and prosecutions will normally be by the police themselves and involve no communication of documents or information to others. However, if communication to others is necessary for the purpose of the police investigation and prosecution, it is authorised. It may also be, though I do not decide, that there are other public authorities to which documents can properly be disclosed, for example to City and other regulatory authorities or to the security services. But in my judgment the powers to seize and retain are conferred for the better performance of public functions by public bodies and cannot be used to make information available to private individuals for their private purposes." Sir Christopher Slade said: "In my judgment, documents seized by a public authority from a private citizen in exercise of a statutory power can properly be used only for those purposes for which the relevant legislation contemplated that they might be used . . As a starting point, therefore, it is necessary to consider the purposes for which Parliament contemplated that documents seized under the powers conferred by Part II of the Act of 1984 might properly be used by the police. In my judgment, those purposes must be co-terminous with the purposes for which it envisaged that such documents might properly be retained by the police. The Vice Chancellor, ante, p.234B, stated that "Section 22 is dealing with the duration not the purpose of retention." I do not, for my part, read the scope of section 22 as being so limited as this. Not only does section 22(2) specify certain stated purposes for which anything seized for the purposes of a criminal investigation may be retained, but the subsection is prefaced by the words "Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above." These prefacing words presuppose that subsection (1) has itself specified, albeit in general terms, the purposes for which documents seized by virtue of section 19 or 20 may be retained. Accordingly, it seems to me, they presuppose that the phrase in subsection (1), "so long as is necessary in all the circumstances," has specified in general terms not only the duration but also the purposes for which retention of seized documents may continue." What then is the meaning of the phrase in section 22(1), "so long as is necessary in all the circumstances?" In my judgment, in its context, this phrase can only mean: so long as is necessary for carrying out the purposes for which the powers given by sections 19 and 20 have been conferred. I shall not attempt a comprehensive statement of those purposes. They clearly include inter alia the primary purposes of investigating and prosecuting crime and the return to the true owner of property believed to have been obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence. Further, the relevant sections would, I think, authorise acts which were reasonably incidental to the pursuit of those primary purposes, thus including in appropriate circumstances the disclosure to third parties of seized documents." Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 22 1 Citers Â Â Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Environment, Ex parte NALGO; CA 1992 - (1992) 5 Admin LR 785; [1993] ALR 785 Â Thomassy -v- France [1992] 15 EHRR 1 1992 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Practice The court emphasised the need for a court refusing bail to give reasons. In refusing bail, there was a requirement to examine all the circumstances arguing for or against the existence of a genuine requirement of public interest justifying, having due regard to presumption of innocence, a departure from the rule and respect for individual liberty. 1 Citers Â H -v- Norway (1992) 73 DR 155 1992 ECHR Human Rights Whether fertilised ovum has a right to life under Article 2. European Conventionon Human Rights 2 1 Citers Â Â Lennox Phillip and Others -v- Director of Public Prosecutions of Trinidad and Tobago and Another; Same -v-Commissioners of Prisons; PC 19-Feb-1992 - Gazette, 19 February 1992; [1992] 1 AC 545; [1992] 2 WLR 211 Â Margareta And Roger Andersson -v- Sweden 12963/87; [1992] ECHR 1; (1992) 14 EHRR 615 25 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pfeifer And Plankl -v- Austria (1992) 14 EHRR 692; 10802/84; [1992] ECHR 2 25 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights, Administrative, Criminal Practice Two of the judges who had acted in Mr Pfeifer’s case also presided at his trial, despite a clear provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure disqualifying them. The Commission dealt with whether the court was ‘established by law’ separately from whether it was ‘impartial’ and held that it was not. The Court held that the two complaints coincided: the court was not established by law because of the disqualification which national law had imposed so as to remove all reasonable doubt as to the impartiality of trial courts. Hence there was a breach of Article 6(1) (and there had not been an effective waiver of the applicant’s rights). In order to be effective, a waiver must be made without undue compulsion, and the consent must be an informed one. Regard must be had to the character or nature of the right when a decision is made as to whether the person was given sufficient information about that right for him to make an informed decision as to whether or not he should waive it. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Nibbio -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 7; 12854/87; [1992] ECHR 7 26 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Monaco -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 6; 12923/87; [1992] ECHR 6 26 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Biondi -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 3; 12871/87; [1992] ECHR 3 26 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lestini -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 5; 12859/87; [1992] ECHR 5 26 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Borgese -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 4; 12870/87; [1992] ECHR 4 26 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Birou -v- France [1992] ECHR 11; 13319/87; [1992] ECHR 11 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cappello -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 13; 12783/87; [1992] ECHR 13 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cardarelli -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 14; 12148/86; [1992] ECHR 14 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Just satisfaction not applied [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ruotolo -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 32; 12460/86; [1992] ECHR 32 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses - claim rejected; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Casciaroli -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 15; 11973/86; [1992] ECHR 15 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cifola -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 16; 13216/87; [1992] ECHR 16 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cooperativa Parco Cuma -v- Italy 12145/86; [1992] ECHR 17; [1992] ECHR 17 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cormio -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 18; 13130/87; [1992] ECHR 18 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Diana -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 19; 11898/85; [1992] ECHR 19 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gana -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 21; 13024/87; [1992] ECHR 21 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Golino -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 22; 12172/86; [1992] ECHR 22 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ridi -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 31; 11911/85; [1992] ECHR 31 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Caffe Roversi S P A -v- Italy 12825/87; [1992] ECHR 12; [1992] ECHR 12 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mastrantonio -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 28; 12054/86; [1992] ECHR 28 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Barbagallo -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 10; 13132/87; [1992] ECHR 10 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Arena -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 9; 13261/87; [1992] ECHR 9 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Andreucci -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 8; 12955/87; [1992] ECHR 8 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â G -v- Italy 12787/87; [1992] ECHR 20; [1992] ECHR 20 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vorrasi -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 39; 12706/87; [1992] ECHR 39 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tumminelli -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 37; 13362/87; [1992] ECHR 37 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pierazzini -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 30; 13265/87; [1992] ECHR 30 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Societe Stenuit -v- France 11598/85; [1992] 14 EHRR 509; [1992] ECHR 34; [1992] ECHR 34 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Struck out of the list (solution of the matter) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Serrentino -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 33; 12295/86; [1992] ECHR 33 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Steffano -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 35; 12409/86; [1992] ECHR 35 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Taiuti -v- France [1992] ECHR 36; 12238/86; [1992] ECHR 36 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tusa -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 38; 13299/87; [1992] ECHR 38 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Idrocalce S R L -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 23; 12088/86; [1992] ECHR 23 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected; Lack of jurisdiction (measures to remedy the situation) [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lorenzi, Bernardini And Gritti -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 24; 13301/87; [1992] ECHR 24 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Maciariello -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 25; 12284/86; [1992] ECHR 25 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Manieri -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 26; 12053/86; [1992] ECHR 26 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Manifattura Fl -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 27; 12407/86; [1992] ECHR 27 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pandolfelli And Palumbo -v- Italy 13218/87; [1992] ECHR 29; [1992] ECHR 29 27 Feb 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Interest - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â B -v- France [1992] ECHR 40; 13343/87; [1992] ECHR 40 25 Mar 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection rejected (six month period); Violation of Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Campbell -v- The United Kingdom 13590/88; (1992) 15 EHRR 137; [1992] ECHR 41 25 Mar 1992 ECHR Human Rights, Prisons, Scotland The applicant complained about the compatibility with the European Convention of the Prisons rule 74(4) which provided that "every letter to or from a prisoner shall be read by the Governor . . and it shall be within the discretion of the Governor to stop any letter if he considers that the contents are objectionable." Held: The interference with the applicant's correspondence violated article 8. "Admittedly, as the Government pointed out, the borderline between mail concerning contemplated litigation and that of a general nature is especially difficult to draw and correspondence with a lawyer may concern matters which have little or nothing to do with litigation. Nevertheless, the Court sees no reason to distinguish between the different categories of correspondence with lawyers which, whatever their purpose, concern matters of a private and confidential character. In principle, such letters are privileged under Article 8. This means that the prison authorities may open a letter from a lawyer to a prisoner when they have reasonable cause to believe that it contains an illicit enclosure which the normal means of detection have failed to disclose. The letter should, however, only be opened and should not be read. Suitable guarantees preventing the reading of the letter should be provided, eg opening the letter in the presence of the prisoner. The reading of a prisoner's mail to and from a lawyer, on the other hand, should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances when the authorities have reasonable cause to believe that the privilege is being abused in that the contents of the letter endanger prison security or the safety of others or are otherwise of a criminal nature. What may be regarded as 'reasonable cause' will depend on all the circumstances but it presupposes the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the privileged channel of communication was being abused." Prison (Scotland) Rules 1952 (SI 1952/565) 74(4) - European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Editions Periscope -v- France [1992] ECHR 43; 11760/85; [1992] ECHR 43 26 Mar 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Beldjoudi -v- France [1992] ECHR 42; 12083/86; [1992] ECHR 42 26 Mar 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Farmakopoulos -v- Belgium [1992] ECHR 44; 11683/85; [1992] ECHR 44 27 Mar 1992 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â X -v- France 18020/91; [1992] ECHR 45; [1992] ECHR 45 31 Mar 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Questions of procedure rejected; Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ponsamy Poongavanam -v- Regina 6 Apr 1992 PC Lord Goff of Chieveley Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Commonwealth, Constitutional (Mauritius) The defendant appealed conviction on the ground that the jury had been all male. Women being effectively excluded from jury service in Mauritius. The question was whether, having regard to the composition of the jury, the appellant's trial violated a provision in the Constitution of Mauritius. Held: There was no basis for concluding that the justification for the means of selecting juries no longer had an objective justification. The board referred to the "fair cross-section" requirement adopted in the American case law. Whether such a broad principle can be derived from the Constitution of Mauritius depends upon the construction of the word "impartial". The Constitution was concerned with the actual tribunal by which the case is tried and with the impartiality of that tribunal. The American principle was directed to the representative character of the jury list. "Whether the jurisprudence on Article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights is likely to develop in that direction, is very difficult to foresee; but any such development would require a substantial piece of creative interpretation which has the effect of expanding the meaning of the words of Article 6(1) beyond their ordinary meaning." 1 Citers Â Derbyshire County Council -v- Times Newspapers Ltd and Others [1992] 1 QB 770 19 Apr 1992 CA Balcombe LJ, Butler-Sloss LJ Human Rights, Defamation, Media In two issues of 'The Sunday Times' newspaper on 17 and 24 September 1989 there appeared articles concerning share deals involving the superannuation fund of the Derbyshire County Council. The articles in the issue of 17 September were headed 'Revealed: Socialist tycoons's deals with a Labour chief and 'Bizarre deals of a council leader and the media tycoon': that in the issue of 24 September was headed 'Council share deals under scrutiny.' The council leader was Mr David Melvyn Bookbinder; the 'media tycoon' was Mr Owen Oyston. The articles questioned the propriety of investments made by the council of moneys in its superannuation fund, with Mr. Bookbinder as the prime mover, in three deals with Mr. Oyston or companies controlled by him. Excerpts from the articles giving the flavour of the allegations made will be found in the judgment at first instance [1991] 4 All E.R. 795 to which those interested may refer. The council is the 'administering authority' of its superannuation fund under the Superannuation Act 1972 and the Local Government Superannuation Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986 No. 24) made thereunder." Held: The Court addressed Article 10 in determining whether or not it was necessary and proportionate to allow a local authority the right to sue in defamation for the protection of its own reputation, as opposed to the recognised rights of individual councillors or officers to sue in a personal capacity. Regard should be had to the Convention in resolving uncertainty in the common law, and in determining how it should develop. European Convention on Human Rights 10 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Rieme -v- Sweden [1992] ECHR 46; 12366/86; [1992] ECHR 46 22 Apr 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 8 [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vidal -v- Belgium [1992] ECHR 47; [1992] ECHR 67; 12351/86; [1992] ECHR 47; [1992] ECHR 67 22 Apr 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Violation of Art. 6; Just satisfaction reserved 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Castells -v- Spain 11798/85; (1992) 14 EHRR 445; [1992] ECHR 48 23 Apr 1992 ECHR Human Rights, Media The conviction of the applicant for publishing in a weekly magazine an article which insulted the government with the penalty of disqualification from public office, violated the applicants freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10. " The court recalls that the freedom of expression, enshrined in paragraph 1 of Article 10 (Art. 10-1), constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 (Art. 10-2), it is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is 'no democratic society' . . While freedom of expression is important for everybody, it is especially so for an elected representative of the people. He represents his electorate, draws attention to the pre-occupations and defends their interests. Accordingly, interference with the freedom of expression of an opposition member of Parliament, like the applicant, called for the closest scrutiny on the part of the court." The Court described the role of the press, and its duties: ". . . the pre-eminent role of the press in a state governed by the rule of law must not be forgotten. Although it must not overstep various bounds set, inter alia, for the prevention of disorder and the protection of the reputation of others, it is nevertheless incumbent on it to impart information and ideas on political questions and on other matters of public interest." and "Freedom of the press affords the public one of the best means of discovering and forming an opinion of the ideas and attitudes of their political leaders. In particular, it gives politicians the opportunity to reflect and comment on the preoccupations of public opinion; it thus enables everyone to participate in the free political debate which is at the very core of the concept of a democratic society." European Convention on Human Rights 10 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Megyeri -v- Germany; ECHR 12-May-1992 - 13770/88; (1993) 15 EHRR 584; [1992] ECHR 49 Â Ludi -v- Switzerland [1992] ECHR 50; 12433/86; (1992) 15 EHRR 173; [1992] ECHR 50; [1992] ECHR 50; [1992] ECHR 50 15 Jun 1992 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Practice The claimant challenged his conviction of a drug trafficking offence. The evidence against him consisted mainly of a report by an anonymous undercover agent and transcripts of telephone intercepts of calls between the agent and the applicant. Neither the applicant nor his advocates were given the opportunity directly to question the agent. They wished to demonstrate the extent to which the applicant had been induced or entrapped to commit the offence. Held: The witness could have been called in a way which could have preserved that witnesses' anonymity, and thus there had been a violation. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Thorgeir Thorgeirson -v- Iceland (1992) 14 EHRR 843; 13778/88; [1992] ECHR 51 25 Jun 1992 ECHR Human Rights, Defamation Two newspaper articles reported widespread rumours of brutality by the Reykjavik police. These rumours had some substantiation in fact, a policeman had been convicted recently. The purpose of the articles was to promote an investigation by an independent body. Held: "freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society". Although the articles were framed in particularly strong terms, they bore on a matter of serious public concern. The factual elements in the relevant articles consisted essentially of references to "stories" or "rumours", emanating from persons other than the applicant, or "public opinion" involving allegations of police brutality, and it was unreasonable to require the writer to prove that unspecified members of the Reykjavik police force had committed acts of serious assault resulting in disablement. European Convention on Human Rights 10 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Drozd and Janousek -v- France And Spain; ECHR 26-Jun-1992 - 12747/87; (1992) 14 EHRR 745; [1992] ECHR 52 Â Â Regina -v- Director of Serious Fraud Office, ex Parte Smith; HL 15-Jul-1992 - Gazette, 15 July 1992; [1992] 3 All ER 456; [1992] 3 WLR 66; [1993] AC 1; [1992] BCLC 879 Â Vijayanathan And Pusparajah -v- France 17550/90 ; 17825/91 27 Aug 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Preliminary objection allowed (victim) Â Â Vijayanathan And Pusparajah -v- France; ECHR 27-Aug-1992 - 17825/91; 17550/90; [1992] ECHR 54; [1991] ECHR 75 Â Vijayanathan And Pusparajah -v- France 17550/90;17825/91; [1992] ECHR 54 27 Aug 1992 ECHR Human Rights ECHR Judgment (Merits) - Preliminary objection allowed (victim). [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tomasi -v- France [1992] ECHR 53; 12850/87 27 Aug 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 5-3; Questions of procedure accepted; Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Schwabe -v- Austria [1992] ECHR 56; 13704/88 28 Aug 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Artner -v- Austria [1992] ECHR 55; 13161/87; [1990] ECHR 31 28 Aug 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â A T & T Istel Ltd -v- Tully; HL 9-Sep-1992 - Gazette, 09 September 1992; [1993] AC 45; [1992] 3 All ER 523; [1992] 3 WLR 344 Â F M -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 57; 12784/87; [1992] ECHR 57 23 Sep 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Struck out of the list (solution of the matter) [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kolompar -v- Belgium [1992] ECHR 59; 11613/85; [1992] ECHR 59 24 Sep 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 5-1; No violation of Art. 5-4 [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Herczegfalvy -v- Austria; ECHR 24-Sep-1992 - 10533/83; [1992] ECHR 58; (1992) 15 EHRR 437; [1992] ECHR 83 Â Pham Hoang -v- France 13191/87; [1992] ECHR 61; (1992) 16 EHRR 53; [1992] ECHR 61 25 Sep 1992 ECHR Human Rights, Customs and Excise Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-2; Violation of Art. 6-3-c; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Croissant -v- Germany [1992] ECHR 60; 13611/88; [1992] ECHR 60 25 Sep 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-3-c 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â X -v- Austria [1992] ECHR 82 6 Oct 1992 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â T -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 65; 14104/88 12 Oct 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses - claims rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Salerno -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 64; 11955/86; [1992] ECHR 64 12 Oct 1992 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cesarini -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 63; 11892/85; [1992] ECHR 63 12 Oct 1992 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Boddaert -v- Belgium [1992] ECHR 62; 12919/87; [1992] ECHR 62 12 Oct 1992 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â WM -v- Denmark Unreported, 14 October 1992; (1992) 73 DR 193; 17392/90 14 Oct 1992 ECHR Human Rights (Commission) The applicant lived in the German Democratic Republic ('DDR'). He wished to move to the Federal Republic of Germany, but the DDR authorities refused him permission. At 1115 on 9 September 1988, together with 17 other DDR citizens, he entered the premises of the Danish embassy and requested negotiations with the DDR authorities, but at 0230 on 10 September the Danish Ambassador requested the DDR police to come into the Embassy to remove the applicant and the other DDR citizens. The applicant was then arrested by the DDR police. He and the other male members of the party were detained for 33 days and then released on 'conditional imprisonment', which subjected him to the risk of 18 months imprisonment if he failed to comply with the conditions set. The applicant complained that the conduct of the Danish Ambassador infringed his rights under Article 5 of the Convention. On the question of jurisdiction the Commission ruled: "The Commission notes that these complaints are directed mainly against Danish diplomatic authorities in the former DDR. It is clear, in this respect, from the constant jurisprudence of the Commission that authorised agents of a State, including diplomatic or consular agents, bring other persons or property within the jurisdiction of that State to the extent that they exercise authority over such persons or property. In so far as they affect such persons or property by their acts or omissions, the responsibility of the State is engaged. Therefore, in the present case the Commission is satisfied that the acts of the Danish ambassador complained of affected persons within the jurisdiction of the Danish authorities within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention." In relation to the claim under Article 5, the Commission observed that it was the DDR authorities, not the Danish diplomatic authorities, which were responsible for the applicant's detention. The Commission continued: "The Commission recalls, however, that an act or omission of a Party to the Convention may exceptionally engage the responsibility of that State for acts of a State not party to the Convention where the person in question had suffered or risks suffering a flagrant denial of the guarantees and rights secured to him under the Convention. The Commission finds, however, that what happened to the applicant at the hands of the DDR authorities cannot in the circumstances be considered to be so exceptional as to engage the responsibility of Denmark." European Convention on Human Rights 5 1 Citers Â Mlynek -v- Austria [1992] ECHR 66; 15016/89; [1992] ECHR 66 27 Oct 1992 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vidal -v- Belgium (Article50) 12351/86 28 Oct 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Open Door And Dublin Well Woman -v- Ireland 14234/88; [1992] ECHR 68 29 Oct 1992 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Y -v- The United Kingdom [1992] ECHR 69; 14229/88; [1992] ECHR 69 29 Oct 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Open Door And Dublin Well Woman -v- Ireland (1992) 15 EHRR 244; [1992] ECHR 68; 14234/88; 14235/88 29 Oct 1992 ECHR Mr R. Ryssdal, President Human Rights, Family Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Lack of jurisdiction (Art. 8); Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (six month period); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection rejected (out of time); Violation of Art. 10; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+8; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings European Convention on Human Rights 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Abdoella -v- The Netherlands [1992] ECHR 70; 12728/87; [1992] ECHR 70 25 Nov 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (out of time); Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Giancarlo Lombardo -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 73; 12490/86; [1992] ECHR 73 26 Nov 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Brincat -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 71; 13867/88; [1992] ECHR 71 26 Nov 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Lack of jurisdiction; Violation of Art. 5-3; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Francesco Lombardo -v- Italy [1992] ECHR 72; 11519/85; [1992] ECHR 72 26 Nov 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection withdrawn (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Just satisfaction not applied [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Olsson -v- Sweden (No 2) 13441/87; [1992] ECHR 75 27 Nov 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Lack of jurisdiction; No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 6-1 (access); No separate issue under Art. 53; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â M R -v- Italy 12996/87; [1992] ECHR 74; [1992] ECHR 74 27 Nov 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Struck out of the list (solution of the matter) [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â AM -v- United Kingdom 20657/92; [1992] ECHR 84 2 Dec 1992 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Practice The applicant complained that at his trial in 1988 for the murder of two British soldiers in Befast, the judge had allowed the cameramen upon whose film evidence he had been convicted to be hidden from the view of the defendants. The court considered the admissibility of the claim. Held: The case wa inadmissible: "The Commission recalls the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights that, in principle, all evidence must be adduced in the presence of the accused at a public hearing with a view to adversarial argument, but this does not mean that a statement from a witness must always be made in court and in public if it is to be admitted in evidence . . The defendant must be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question the witnesses against him. In the present case, the witnesses whose identity was not disclosed to the public or the accused, were present in court and could be seen by the judge and by the representatives of both prosecution and defence. The evidence itself concerned not the question of identification of the applicant (which evidence was given by police officers whose identity was not withheld), but merely the making of certain filmed and photographic evidence. It was accepted by the defence that the evidence did not implicate the applicant." European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina -v- Advertising Standards Authority Ltd Ex Parte Vernons Organisation Ltd; QBD 9-Dec-1992 - Gazette, 09 December 1992; [1992] 1 WLR 1289 Â HM Attorney General -v- Associated Newspapers Ltd and Others Gazette, 09 December 1992 9 Dec 1992 QBD Beldam LJ Human Rights, Media, Contempt of Court A newspaper was held to have been in contempt of court for publishing details of the deliberations of a jury, even though it had not solicited the information. Beldam LJ said of the word 'disclosure': "It is a word wide enough to encompass the revealing of the secrets of the jury room by a juryman to his friend or neighbour as well as the opening up of such knowledge to the public as a whole by someone to whom it has been revealed. And in the light of the background to which we have referred, we see every reason why Parliament should have intended the word 'disclose' to cover both situations. Nor do we regard it as significant that the secrets came into the hands of the newspaper indirectly. The existence of a market for the transcript of interviews with jurors containing prohibited details of their deliberations is as inimical to the interests of justice as the direct solicitation for money which occurred in this case. Section 8 is aimed at keeping the secrets of the jury room inviolate in the interests of justice. We believe that it would only be by giving it an interpretation which would emasculate Parliament's purpose that it could be held that the widespread disclosure in this case did not infringe the section." Beldam LJ pointed out that if disclosures were allowed, jurors may come under pressure to make disclosures: "It was against this background that Parliament enacted section 8 of the Act of 1981. If breaches of the secrecy of the jury room had escalated to a degree that Parliament deemed a statutory sanction to be necessary, then its duty was to define clearly the circumstances in which an offence would be committed so that criminal sanctions were restricted to those offences which, in Lord Diplock's words in Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1994] AC 440, 449: 'involve an interference with the due administration of justice either in a particular case or more generally as a continuing process.'" and "Thus, we believe, the law has long recognised the importance of complete freedom of discussion in the jury room. If a juror were to be deterred from expressing his doubt of the accused's guilt because he feared subsequent recrimination or ridicule, the accused might be deprived of a persuasive voice in his favour. So, too, a jury deciding a plaintiff's claim to damages for libel ought not to be exposed to interrogation by the erstwhile defendants or others who share an interest in avoiding liability for, or reducing the consequences of, defamatory publication. We consider that the free, uninhibited and unfettered discussion by the jury in the course of their deliberations is essential to the proper administration of a system of justice which includes trial by jury. The enacted provisions designed to maintain such discussion are confined to soliciting, disclosing or publishing the particular aspects of the discussion in the jury room identified in the section. To that extent only do they restrain freedom expression. There is no restriction, as Mr Pannick [counsel for the newspaper] suggested, on the freedom to express opinions, advance arguments, advocate changes or promote reform on the many aspects of jury trial which have already been the subject of public debate and which are, and remain, proper objects of public concern and interest. In due course the European Court of Human Rights may be called upon to decide whether the measures enacted by Parliament are disproportionate to the restriction imposed on freedom of expression. When it does so, it will surely take full account of Parliament's experience of trial by jury as an instrument of justice in the United Kingdom and its appreciation of the need today to protect the secrecy of the jury room. We were invited to take these factors into account to guide our interpretation of section 8. To the extent that it is permissible for this purpose, we have considered them." European Convention on Human Rights - Contempt of Court Act 1981 8(1) 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Sainte-Marie -v- France [1992] ECHR 81; 12981/87 16 Dec 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 6-1 [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] Â Niemietz -v- Germany 13710/88; [1992] 16 EHRR 97; [1992] ECHR 80 16 Dec 1992 ECHR Human Rights, Legal Professions A lawyer complained that a search of his offices was an interference with his private life. Held: In construing the term 'private life', "it would be too restrictive to limit the notion of an 'inner circle' in which the individual may live his own personal life as he chooses and to exclude therefrom entirely the outside world not encompassed within that circle. Respect for private life must also comprise to a certain degree the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings." Article 8 should not be construed as necessarily excluding business activities. European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Hennings -v- Germany 12129/86; [1992] ECHR 79; [1992] ECHR 79 16 Dec 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+6 [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Hadjianastassiou -v- Greece [1992] ECHR 78; 12945/87; [1992] ECHR 78 16 Dec 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-b; No violation of Art. 10; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â De Geouffre De La Pradelle -v- France [1992] ECHR 76; 12964/87 16 Dec 1992 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Edwards -v- The United Kingdom 13071/87; Times, 21 January 1991; (1992) 15 EHRR 417; [1992] ECHR 77 16 Dec 1992 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Practice The fact that the elderly victim of the robbery of which the defendant had been convicted had failed to pick out Mr Edwards when she was shown two volumes of photographs of possible burglars which included his photograph was not disclosed to the defence. One of the police witnesses said that no fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime, whereas in fact two fingerprints were found which later turned out to be those of the next door neighbour who was a regular visitor to the house. Held: There was a prosecution failure to disclose relevant information, but no PII issue had been raised. The omission was held to have been rectified by the appeal process. Article 6.1 requires the prosecution to disclose to the defence all material evidence in their possession for or against the accused. "it is a requirement of fairness under Article 1 . . that the prosecution authorities disclose to the defence all material evidence for or against the accused." European Convention on Human Rights 1 6.1 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sainte-Marie -v- France 12981/87; [1992] ECHR 81 16 Dec 1992 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â
		Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.

swarb.co.uk - law index

Human Rights - From: 1992 To: 1992