SC v The United Kingdom: ECHR 15 Jun 2004

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient ; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient ; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
The claimant was a child aged 11, and complaint was made that he had been tried by an adult court.
Held: He was described as having low intelligence, and had not understood the significance of the proceedings. This had the effect of depriving him of an effective opportunity to participate effectively in the proceedings, and thus denied him the right to a fair trial.
60958/00, Times 29-Jun-2004, [2004] ECHR 263, 17 BHRC 607, [2005] Crim LR 130, (2005) 40 EHRR 10, [2005] 1 FCR 347
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6, European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Citing:
CitedStanford v United Kingdom ECHR 11-Apr-1994
A defendant’s difficulty in hearing the case because of a screen erected to protect the identity of witnesses did not vitiate the trial or make it unfair. The right to a fair trial included the right to be present and in a position to follow the . .
CitedV v The United Kingdom; T v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-1999
The claimant challenged to the power of the Secretary of State to set a tariff where the sentence was imposed pursuant to section 53(1). The setting of the tariff was found to be a sentencing exercise which failed to comply with Article 6(1) of the . .

Cited by:
See AlsoSC v The United Kingdom ECHR 14-Sep-2011
. .
CitedOrr, Regina v CACD 7-Jul-2016
The court considered whether the trial court had correctly identified the test for fitness to plead.
Held: The appeal was allowed: ‘Once the issue of fitness to plead has been raised it must be determined. In this case, the judge explicitly . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 March 2021; Ref: scu.198290