The appellants variously claimed their convictions should be set aside because the court which had heard their cases was not independent and impartial. They alleged in particular that questions of military discipline and morale would affect the court process making it unfair. The merits of the decision to prosecute were outside the ambit of article 6, and, even if it were not, there was no vice in those considerations affecting the decision.
Judges:
Laws LJ, Turners and McCombe JJ
Citations:
Gazette 04-Oct-2001, Times 08-Oct-2001
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – In Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2); Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain and Proprietary Articles Trade Association CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimants alleged that a connection between a member of the Restrictive Practices Court, who was to hear a complaint and another company, disclosed bias against them. She had not recused herself.
Held: When asking whether material . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Armed Forces, Human Rights
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.166230