Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
The applicant had been acquitted of the criminal charge against him at first instance. This decision was reversed on appeal by the Supreme Court after an oral hearing at which it heard submissions from the prosecution and from the applicant’s lawyer. But the issues which it had to determine were predominantly factual in nature and they were complex.
Held: The court reiterated the point made in its earlier jurisprudence that the manner of the application of article 6(1) to proceedings before courts of appeal depends on the special features of the proceedings involved, and that account must be taken of the entirety of those proceedings in the domestic legal order and of the role of the appellate court therein. It did not consider that, having regard to what was at stake for the applicant, the issues to be determined by the Supreme Court could as a matter of fair trial have been examined properly without a direct assessment of the evidence given by the applicant in person. Article 6 had been violated.
Citations:
44671/98, [2003] ECHR 365, (2003) 39 EHRR 426
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.185156
