The prosecutor appealed against a stay of the prosecution as an abuse of process. It was alleged that the defendant solicitor had permitted a relation of his partner to launder the proceeds of a tax fraud. The principal defendant had been substantially acquitted of the offences alleged to be a fraud. The defendant had been … Continue reading RCPO v C: CACD 5 Feb 2010
The appellant asked whether the statutory review of a housing authority’s decision on whether he was intentionally homeless was a determination of a civil right, and if so whether the review was of the appropriate standard. The claimant said that she had not received a letter informing her of the consequences of not accepting an … Continue reading Tomlinson and Others v Birmingham City Council: SC 17 Feb 2010
. .
The claimant’s daughter had committed suicide after being given home leave on a secure ward by the respondent mental hospital. A claim in negligence had been settled, but the parents now appealed refusal of their claim that the hospital had failed . .
(First Section) The claimant complaned that he had not been allowed access to a lawyer when being questioned by police when he was not under arrest. He had been stopped driving home from work and his car inspected by the police after reports of . .
The appellant, applying for housing as a homeless person, had rejected the final property offered on the basis that its resemblance to the conditions of incarceration in Iran, from which she had fled, would continue and indeed the mental . .
The applicants complained that they had been made subject to non-derogating control orders as suspected terrorists, but that the failure to inform them of the allegations or evidence against them was unfair and infringed their human rights. The . .
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected; Costs and expenses . .
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings; Inadmissible under Art. 6-1 as regard to the fairness of the proceedings, and under P1-1; . .
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to access to a court; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings; Not necessary to examine Art. . .
ECHR Judgment (Merits) – No violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-d. . .
The applicants had been sued in defamation by McDonalds. They had no resources, and English law precluded legal aid for such cases. The trial was the longest in English legal history. They complained that the non-availablility of legal aid infringed their right to a fair trial. Held: There had been an unacceptable inequality of arms. … Continue reading Steel and Morris v United Kingdom: ECHR 15 Feb 2005
The claimant had been sole director of a company which went into liquidation. He sought a redundancy payment from the respondent under the 1996 Act. It was refused. The tribunal had applied Buchan. It had refused to hear an argument that the tribunal chairman was also employed by the respondent and could not therefore be … Continue reading Smith v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: EAT 15 Oct 1999
Grand Chamber – Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6.1 to hear a case within a reasonable time. Citations: 156, ECHR 2000-XI, 30210/96 Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 12 6.1 Jurisdiction: Human Rights Cited by: Cited – Umek v Slovenia ECHR … Continue reading Kudla v Poland: ECHR 2000
The house was asked whether it might be correct to stay criminal proceedings as an abuse where for delay. The defendants were prisoners in a prison riot in 1998. The case only came on for trial in 2001, when they submitted that the delay was an abuse. Held: The defendants had a right to a … Continue reading Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001): HL 11 Dec 2003
The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the ‘reasonable time’ requirement, laid down in Article 6.1 Judges: Dragoljub Popovic, President Citations: 17993/09, [2011] ECHR 1507 Links: Bailii Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 Jurisdiction: Human Rights Human Rights Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.445010
National Security Certificates issued in Northern Ireland which had the effect of preventing his making a claim of discrimination, was disproportionate. The Act guaranteed person’s a right not to be discriminated for religious belief or political opinion in the job market. That is a civil right. The government argued that since the post applied for … Continue reading Devlin v The United Kingdom: ECHR 30 Oct 2001
The judge failed to give a direction in accordance with recommendations from the Judicial Studies Board and counsel in the case as to the need for the jury not to draw inferences from the defendants’ failure to mention certain facts on interview. The concepts of fairness and safety were accepted to be different, but the … Continue reading Regina v Francom; Regina v Latif (Clare); Regina v Latif (Melna); Regina v Bevis; Regina v Harker: CACD 24 Oct 2000
There was breach of the convention because of length of time the Defendants had been held until their trial. Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (ratione temporis); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection rejected (victim, estoppel); Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses … Continue reading Yagei and Sargin v Turkey: ECHR 26 Jun 1995
When the Home Secretary set a tariff sentence for a mandatory life sentence prisoner, in order to satisfy the requirement for retribution and deterrence, that exercise was not a judicial sentencing exercise to which the provisions of the Human Rights legislation applied. The issues he considered were wider than those involved in the strict sentencing … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anderson Same v Same, ex parte Taylor: QBD 27 Feb 2001
Citations: 21463/93, [2001] ECHR 10, [2001] ECHR 10 Links: Worldlii, Bailii Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 Jurisdiction: Human Rights Cited by: Cited – Pulcini v Italy ECHR 17-Apr-2003 Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage – financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial … Continue reading Lunari v Italy: ECHR 11 Jan 2001
When determining whether a claimant has possessions or property within the meaning of Article I the court may have regard to national law and will generally do so unless the national law is incompatible with the object and purpose of Article 1. Any interference with the enjoyment of property must be justifiable as being in … Continue reading Pressos Compania Naviera S A And Others v Belgium: ECHR 20 Nov 1995
In each case the youth aged 15 had been given a warning after admitting a sexual assault, and a decision had been made not to prosecute. On accepting the warnings, they had then been required to place their names on the sex offenders register, but this had not been explained to them when asked about … Continue reading Regina (U) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; Regina (R) v Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary: Admn 29 Nov 2002
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-a; Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-b; 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 Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-II 25444/94, [1999] ECHR 17, (1999) … Continue reading Pelissier and Sassi v France: ECHR 25 Mar 1999
Over-long delay by court system in settling amount of costs constituted breach of human rights; order made in 1991, not settled till 1995 Times 24-Oct-1997, [1997] ECHR 72, 22410/93, (1997) 26 EHRR 527, [1997] ECHR 72 Worldlii, Bailii European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 Human Rights Cited by: Cited – Davies v The United Kingdom … Continue reading Robins v The United Kingdom: ECHR 23 Sep 1997
There had been a long-running dispute as to the manner of death of a French judge seconded to Djibouti. The applicant, acting for the widow had been prosecuted for his outspoken criticisms of the judge who had had conduct of the case, until being replaced. The applicant claimed that, before the Court of Cassation, his … Continue reading Morice v France: ECHR 23 Apr 2015
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 the power in prescribed circumstances to dissolve the court-martial either before or during the trial. The Strasbourg … Continue reading Findlay v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Feb 1997
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use of … Continue reading Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza: HL 22 Jan 2004
The appellants had been convicted of murder, it being said that they had disposed of her body at sea. They now said that the delay between being first questioned and being charged infringed their rights to a trial within a reasonable time, and questioned whether they had has an impartial judge, he having also conducted … Continue reading O’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate No 2: SC 13 Jun 2013
In order to prevent marriages of convenience in the UK the Secretary of State introduced a scheme under which certain persons subject to immigration control required her written permission to marry and would not receive it unless they were present in the UK pursuant to a grant of leave for more than six months of … Continue reading Baiai and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 30 Jul 2008
The defendant had been convicted of knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution contrary to section 30(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Held: The Commission rejected as manifestly ill-founded the applicant’s challenge to this provision as incompatible with article 6(2). It created a rebuttable presumption which the defendant could disprove, and was not a … Continue reading X v United Kingdom: ECHR 1972
(Grand Chamber) The claimant complained that as a prisoner he had been deprived of his right to a fair hearing and his right of access to a court in connection with the decisions refusing his requests for prison leave. Held: The complaint was admissible, and a breach of the prisoner’s article 6 rights had been … Continue reading Boulois v Luxembourg: ECHR 3 Apr 2012
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 European Convention in that the decision maker was the Secretary … Continue reading V v The United Kingdom; T v The United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Dec 1999
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the Convention the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself are generally recognised international … Continue reading Saunders v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Dec 1996
(Grand Chamber) The applicants had been subjected to severe restrictions. They were foreign nationals suspected of terrorist involvement, but could not be deported for fear of being tortured. The UK had derogated from the Convention to put the restrictions in place. Assurances had been given by the home nations that on return they would not … Continue reading A and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Feb 2009
The appellant was serving a life sentence for terrorist offences. He complained that he should have been released under the 1998 Act. It was said he would be a danger to the public if released. On pre-release home leave he was involved in a seriously violent incident, and it was found that he continued to … Continue reading McClean, Re: HL 7 Jul 2005
Tenant’s First Notice to terminate, stood The landlord served a notice to terminate the business lease. The tenant first served a notice to say that it would not seek a new lease, but then, and still within the time limit, it served a second counter-notice seeking a new tenancy. The landlord sought to rely upon … Continue reading Shaws (EAL) Ltd v Pennycook: CA 2 Feb 2004
The claimant said that the defendant country had failed to provide her with an effective remedy for delay in proceedings before its courts. She had sought damages after being involved in a fire. She began proceedings in 1989, and they were concluded in 2006. The government pleaded that the claimant had not yet exhausted her … Continue reading Umek v Slovenia: ECHR 8 Jan 2009
The appellant challenged the procedure for reviewing a decision made as to the suitability of accomodation offered to her after the respondent had accepted her as being homeless. The procedure involved a review by an officer of the council, with an appeal to the County Court on a point of law. Held: The decision was … Continue reading Runa Begum v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (First Secretary of State intervening): HL 13 Feb 2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection allowed (non-exhaustion) (Art. 14+6); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) (Art. 6); Preliminary objection rejected (out of time) . .
Two fraud prosecutions against the claimants had lasted for 15 and 20 years respectively.
Held: Article 6.1 applies to all stages of criminal proceedings, including sentencing and any appeal. The ‘reasonable time’ in criminal matters, . .
The applicant, a Belgian butcher, paid a fine by way of settlement in the face of an order for the closure of his shop until judgment was given in an intended criminal prosecution or until such fine was paid.
Held: Since the payment was made . .
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Struck out of the list; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient
‘possessions’ can be ‘existing possessions’ or assets, . .
The defendant had been sentenced to a non-custodial sentence, but the crown appealed, and two years later, a custodial sentence was substituted.
Held: The delay was a breach of the Convention’s reasonable time requirement under article 6 of . .
. .
The applicant had been convicted of serious offences, in part in reliance upon inferences drawn from his partial silence during interview. At trial, he said this had been on legal advice, and was ready to answer questions about that advice, but none . .
Hudoc The Court was faced with a disciplinary sanction imposed on doctors which resulted in their suspension for periods between 6 weeks and 3 months: ‘Unlike certain other disciplinary sanctions that might have . .
The claimant barrister complained of the manner of conduct of the disciplinary proceedings brought against her. She had been cleared of any breach of the Bar Code of Conduct, but her claim was then ruled out of time under section 7(5)(a), time . .
The appellants were widowers whose wives had died at a time when the benefits a widow would have received were denied to widowers. The legislation had since changed but they variously sought compensation for the unpaid sums.
Held: The appeal . .
INCOME TAX – Penalty – Section 93A Taxes Management Act 1970 – late submission of partnership return – appeal submitted by a partner other than the ‘representative partner’ – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear appeal – whether penalty invokes . .
(Grand Chamber) Complaint as to non-disclosure of prosecution evidence. . .
The appellant faced a criminal trial. He was granted legal aid for two counsel. He asked for two particular junior counsel, but the certificate required him to instruct leading counsel and a junior. He objected that this deprived him of the right to . .
Applications for trade marks on behalf of the claimant had been rejected. Acquired distinctiveness was a significant issue, and the question of whether the appeal was a review or a rehearing was significant. In this appeal, the parties had given . .
A jury had found, under section 4(5) of the 1964 Act as amended, that the defendant was unfit to plead. The court considered section 5 of the 1964 Act.
Held: A judge of the Crown Court is obliged under the section to make a mandatory order . .
(Scotland) The appellant had variously been convicted in reliance on evidence gathered at different stages before arrest, but in each case without being informed of any right to see a solicitor. The court was asked, as a devolution issue, at what . .
The applicant challenged the terms of a non-derogating control order. It was anticipated that unless prevented, he would fight against UK forces in Iraq.
Held: The section allowed the Secretary of State to impose any necessary conditions, but . .
The Court considered the duties imposed on housing authorities under Part VII of the 1996 Act.
Held: Article 6.1 did apply, but in any event the procedure applied under the Act conformed to its requirements. . .
The applicant challenged the prodecures for deciding her appeal against the council’s refusal to pay backdated housing benefits. She complained that the availability of judicial review of the decision was not adequate.
Held: The system did not . .
The applicant, a prisoner challenged the uniform ban on contact by prisoners with the media by telephone, arguing that it infringed his Article 10 rights.
Held: Restricting telephone contact with the media was not part of imprisonment. A . .
The applicant had been sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. He sought a judicial review of the Lord Chief Justice’s recommendation to the Home Secretary for the minimum term he was to serve.
Held: In exercising this function, . .
The appellants had appealed sentences for conspiracy to murder. There had been an inordinate delay between leave to appeal having been granted, and the appeal being heard.
Held: The appellants’ rights had been infringed by the delay, and they . .
(The High Court of Justiciary) The prosecution had accepted that the matter had been the subject of unreasonable delay, but wished to continue. The defendant sought a plea in bar, on the basis that continuing would infringe his rights.
Held: . .
(The High Court of Justiciary) The defendant appealed on the basis that the delay in the sentencing process had resulted in an infringement of his human rights.
Held: The appeal itself had been without merit. The delay had been to such an . .
The applicants challenged the way in which their newborn children had been removed by the state after birth. S had not had the opportunity of legal representation, after her lawyers had withdrawn. The removal of S’s child was challenged as . .
The Ministry appealed against a finding that the Act, which deprived the right of a Crown employee to sue for personal injuries, was an infringement of his human rights.
Held: The restriction imposed by the section was not a procedural . .
Parties challenged the compliance of proceedings with the convention where there had been considerable delay.
Held: The reasonable detention provision (article 5(3)) and the reasonable time requirement (article 6(1)) conferred free-standing . .
The applicant had complained that, after his arrest he had been refused adequate access to a lawyer. He had not been allowed to see his solicitor for two days, and only then in the presence of a police officer. No inferences had been drawn from his . .
Grand Chamber – The defendants had been convicted after the prosecution had withheld evidence from them and from the judge under public interest immunity certificates. They complained that they had not had fair trials.
Held: The right was . .
There was no human rights breach where the victims of sex abuse had been refused a right to sue for damages out of time. The question is whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment in law: . .
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 . .
The applicant had faced charges of hiring someone to kill his wife. He complained about the use of a recording of his telephone conversation with the man he hired recorded unlawfully by that man.
Held: The ECHR does not address issues about . .
The applicant claimed that proceedings under which he had been accused of fraud in dishonestly evading VAT liability were in reality criminal proceedings and that the minimum standards of a fair trial applied.
Held: The characterisation under . .
The applicant had been proceeded against after the collapse of companies in which he was involved with very substantial debts. The proceedings had begun in July 1990, and lasted nearly nine years.
Held: Where proceedings could be expected to . .
References: Times 15-May-2001, 36337/97, 35974/97, (2002) 34 EHRR 529, [2001] 2 FLR 261, [2001] ECHR 295, [1999] ECHR 179 Links: Bailii, Bailii Ratio The procedures in English law which provided for privacy for proceedings involving children did not in general infringe the human right to family life, nor the right to a public hearing. Where … Continue reading B -v The United Kingdom; P v The United Kingdom: ECHR 24 Apr 2001
