ECHR No violation of Art. 5-1; No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-3-c; No violation of Art. 14+5; No violation of Art. 14+6
The applicants had unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The Court of Appeal dismissed their applications at a hearing at which, in accordance with the normal procedure, they were neither present nor represented. It ordered that part of the time that they had spent in custody after conviction should not count towards service of the sentences that had been imposed on them at first instance.
Held: The court rejected the applicants’ submission that there had been a breach of article 6 because they were not given the opportunity to be present in person and to submit oral arguments as to why they should not be subjected to an extension of their deprivation of liberty. The interests of justice and fairness could be met by the applicants being able to present relevant considerations through making written submissions.
Citations:
(1988) 10 EHRR 205, 9562/81, 9818/82, [1987] ECHR 2, [1987] ECHR 2
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Cited by:
Cited – Dudson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Jul-2005
The defendant had committed a murder when aged 16, and after conviction sentenced to be detailed during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. His tarriff had been set at 18 years, reduced to 16 years after review.
Held: ‘What is at issue is the general . .
Cited – Hammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 1-Dec-2005
The claimants had been convicted of murder, but their tariffs had not yet been set when the 2003 Act came into effect. They said that the procedure under which their sentence tarriffs were set were not compliant with their human rights in that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.164978
