ECHR conditions of forced psychiatric hospitalisation
Citations:
31038/12, [2018] ECHR 673
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.622491
ECHR conditions of forced psychiatric hospitalisation
31038/12, [2018] ECHR 673
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.622491
ECHR Judgment : Article 3 – Prohibition of torture : First Section Committee
16883/15, [2018] ECHR 712
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.622532
ECHR Judgment : Article 7 – No punishment without law : Fourth Section
43328/14, [2018] ECHR 683
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.622500
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Fifth Section Committee
2866/13, [2018] ECHR 710
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.622535
The claimant asserted that the provisions of section 60 of the 1994 Act, which allowed personal searches by police officers where no suspicion of misbehaviour was present, infringed her rights under Article 8 of the Convention.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. There was no deprivation of liberty within the meaning of article 5, and nor was the use of the power discriminatory on the grounds of race. There had been an interference with the right to respect for Mrs Roberts’ private life in article 8, but that this remained ‘in accordance with the law’ and was not unlawful.
Maurice Kay VP CACD, Rafferty, Macur LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 69, [2014] 1 WLR 3299, [2014] WLR(D) 50, [2014] HRLR 5, [2014] 2 Cr App R 6
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 60, European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Appeal from – Roberts, Regina (on The Application of) v The Commissioner of The Metropolitan Police Admn 17-Jul-2012
The claimant challenged the legality of section 60 of the 1994 Act as an interference in her article 8 rights. She had been caught on a bus without her fare and gave a false name and address. A direction had been given authorising any person to be . .
Appeal from – Roberts, Regina (on the application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and another SC 17-Dec-2015
The Court considered the validity of suspicionless stop and search activities under s 60 of the 1994 Act, by police officers.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The safeguards attending the use of the s 60 power, and in particular the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.521049
58874/11 (Communicated Case), [2012] ECHR 1242
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.462186
The applicant alleged that his trial for terrorism related offences was unfair because of the way the courts in Northern Ireland had approached the question of non-disclosure of prosecution papers to the defence on grounds of public interest immunity.
[2011] ECHR 22
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
See Also – McKeown v The United Kingdom ECHR 1-Apr-2008
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.443850
27597/07, [2011] ECHR 172
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.428383
41416/08, [2011] ECHR 1195
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.442213
12731/09, [2011] ECHR 200
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.428436
11918/09, [2011] ECHR 170
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.428391
7120/03, [2011] ECHR 154
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.428385
26156/07, [2011] ECHR 202
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
See Also – Ene v Romania ECHR 2-Dec-2011
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.428439
2627/09, [2011] ECHR 127
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.428265
14336/05, [2011] ECHR 116
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.428259
747/09, [2011] ECHR 128
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.428264
52058/09, [2011] ECHR 150
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.428379
38663/08, [2011] ECHR 102
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.428141
54298/10, [2011] ECHR 113
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.428270
14239/09, [2011] ECHR 125
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.428279
11942/04, [2011] ECHR 65
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.428140
41493/04, [2011] ECHR 114
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.428269
10041/09, [2011] ECHR 126
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.428262
29725/05, [2011] ECHR 117
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.428271
42538/02, [2011] ECHR 48
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.428100
17792/07, [2011] ECHR 26
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.427999
27360/04, [2011] ECHR 29
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.428003
24088/07, [2011] ECHR 100
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.428104
397/07, [2011] ECHR 46
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.428096
34236/06, [2011] ECHR 45
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.428120
28660/04, [2011] ECHR 28
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.428005
7351/04, [2011] ECHR 62
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.428131
12717/06, [2011] ECHR 55
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.428103
60367/10, [2011] ECHR 105
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.428127
22554/04, [2011] ECHR 37
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.428002
33004/07, [2011] ECHR 50
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.428093
25933/06, [2009] ECHR 1633
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.377258
8000/08, [2010] ECHR 656
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
See Also – AA v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Sep-2011
. .
Cited – BH and Another v The Lord Advocate and Another SC 20-Jun-2012
The appellants wished to resist their extradition to the US to face criminal charges for drugs. As a married couple that said that the extraditions would interfere with their children’s rights to family life.
Held: The appeals against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.415117
62110/10, [2010] ECHR 1927
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.426823
Admissibility. It was said of the events in Cyprus in 1974 there had been a failure by the state to investigate unlawful killings. The court repeated the Grand Chamber’s formulation of the relevant law in Silih and Varnava, and then pointed out that the killings in question occurred more than 14 years before Cyprus accorded the right to petition – on 1 January 1989. The court relied on the proposition that the critical date was that date, rather than the date on which Cyprus acceded to the Convention.
7864/06, [2010] ECHR 742
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited – Keyu and Others v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another SC 25-Nov-2015
The Court was asked whether the respondents should be required to hold a public inquiry into a controversial series of events in 1948, when a Scots Guards patrol was alleged to shot and killed 24 unarmed civilians in a village called Batang Kali, in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.416240
37376/05, [2009] ECHR 1412
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.375511
23782/06, [2009] ECHR 1411
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.375451
8958/04, [2009] ECHR 1224
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.371653
30754/04, [2009] ECHR 1225
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.371630
65500/01, [2006] ECHR 1169
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.278338
2015/02, [2006] ECHR 174
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.243482
879/02, [2006] ECHR 184
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.243491
25559/03, [2006] ECHR 183
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.243490
52390/99, [2006] ECHR 156
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.243464
34509/03, [2007] ECHR 837
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.259978
57778/00, [2006] ECHR 143
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.243451
50959/99, [2006] ECHR 155
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
See Also – Odabasi And Kocak v Turkey ECHR 3-Jun-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.243463
Hudoc Request for revision admissible
13416/87
Human Rights
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.165422
The Army’s powers of arrest in Northern Ireland, did not breach the European Convention on Human Rights.
Ryssdal, President
Times 01-Nov-1994, 14310/88, [1994] ECHR 39, (1994) 19 EHRR 193
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF AM and AN etc CA 17-Oct-2008
The claimants were subject to non-derogating control orders, being non EU nationals suspected of terrorism. They now said that they had not had a compatible hearing as to the issue of whether they were in fact involved in terrorist activity.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.165336
The claimant sought damages from the defendant after the death of her father in the Potters Bar rail crash. The defendant applied for summary judgment saying that English law did not recognise a claim by a family member of a deceased save through the claim of the estate itself. The claimant said that this would deny her human rights, and sought a declaration of incompatibility with regard to s1A of the 1976 Act.
Held: ‘It is within the reasonable margin of appreciation of the State to limit those who are entitled to claim compensation to those who are financially dependent on the deceased. Who otherwise should say where the line should be drawn between those who may claim from those who may not? ‘ The claimants had also lost any possibility of a claim through limitation.
Times 14-Jun-2006, [2006] EWHC 1133 (QB)
Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 2000, Human Rights Act 1998, Fatal Accidents Act 1976 1A, Railways Act 1993
England and Wales
Cited – Takoushis, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for Inner North London and others CA 30-Nov-2005
Relatives sought judicial review of the coroner’s decision not to allow a jury, and against allowance of an expert witness. The deceased had been a mental patient but had been arrested with a view to being hospitalised. He was taken first to the . .
Cited – Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury.
Cited – Foster and others v British Gas plc ECJ 12-Jul-1990
The defendants (BGC) were nationalised suppliers of gas. BGC was by statute a body with a legal persona operating under the supervision of the authorities. Its members were appointed by the Secretary of State, who also determined their remuneration. . .
Cited – Parochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley, Warwickshire v Wallbank and another HL 26-Jun-2003
Parish Councils are Hybrid Public Authorities
The owners of glebe land were called upon as lay rectors to contribute to the cost of repairs to the local church. They argued that the claim was unlawful by section 6 of the 1998 Act as an act by a public authority incompatible with a Convention . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.242210
ECHR Judgment : No Article 10 – Freedom of expression-{general} : Fifth Section
70693/11, [2018] ECHR 734
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622641
ECHR Judgment : Article 2 – Right to life : First Section
11244/12, [2018] ECHR 744
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622647
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Third Section Committee
32503/10, [2018] ECHR 741
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622645
ECHR Judgment : No Article 10 – Freedom of expression-{general} : Fifth Section
3687/10, [2018] ECHR 732
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622639
ECHR Judgment : Article 10 – Freedom of expression-{general} : Fifth Section Committee
30460/08, [2018] ECHR 707
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622530
ECHR Judgment : No Article 2 – Right to life : Second Section
69528/10, [2018] ECHR 726
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622533
ECHR Judgment : Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Protection of property : Second Section
54115/09, [2018] ECHR 695
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622534
ECHR Judgment : Freedom of thought, conscience and religion Article 9-1 – Manifest religion or belief : Second Section
3413/09, [2018] ECHR 727
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622524
ECHR Judgment : Article 3 – Prohibition of torture : Second Section Committee
74497/13, [2018] ECHR 693
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622526
ECHR Judgment : Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed : Second Section
72781/12, [2018] ECHR 702
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622536
ECHR Judgment : Revision rejected : Second Section
6169/13, [2018] ECHR 718
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622525
ECHR Judgment : Article 3 – Prohibition of torture : First Section Committee
36658/17, [2018] ECHR 715
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622529
ECHR Judgment : Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage – award : First Section
29907/07, [2018] ECHR 714
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622531
ECHR Judgment : Article 10 – Freedom of expression-{general} : Third Section
10692/09, [2018] ECHR 675
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622499
ECHR Judgment : Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed : Fourth Section
59868/08, [2018] ECHR 674
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622503
ECHR Judgment : No Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life : Second Section
61541/09, [2018] ECHR 719
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622520
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : First Section
14078/12, [2018] ECHR 708
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622514
ECHR Judgment : Article 10 – Freedom of expression-{general} : Second Section Committee
46162/07, [2018] ECHR 692
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622509
ECHR Judgment : Remainder inadmissible : Third Section
1413/08, [2018] ECHR 684
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622497
ECHR Judgment : Right to an effective remedy – Right to a fair trial: Third Section
12085/16, [2018] ECHR 686
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622495
ECHR Judgment : Article 5 – Right to liberty and security : Second Section Committee
2765/09, [2018] ECHR 697
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622504
ECHR Judgment : Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Protection of property : Fourth Section
75225/13, [2018] ECHR 720
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622507
ECHR Judgment : Remainder inadmissible : First Section
29321/13, [2018] ECHR 716
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622522
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : First Section Committee
47685/13, [2018] ECHR 711
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622508
ECHR Judgment : Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Protection of property : Fifth Section
48929/12, [2018] ECHR 709
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622523
ECHR Judgment : Article 10 – Freedom of expression-{general} : Second Section Committee
29899/07, [2018] ECHR 690
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622511
ECHR Judgment : No Article 2 – Right to life : Second Section
36724/10, [2018] ECHR 725
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622521
ECHR Judgment : Article 5 – Right to liberty and security : Second Section Committee
12653/15, [2018] ECHR 691
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622516
ECHR Judgment : Article 10 – Freedom of expression-{general} : Second Section Committee
25834/09, [2018] ECHR 698
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622510
ECHR Judgment : Article 2 – Right to life : Third Section
74282/11, [2018] ECHR 682
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622498
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Second Section Committee
22400/13, [2018] ECHR 701
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622512
ECHR Judgment : Remainder inadmissible : Fifth Section
3401/09, [2018] ECHR 705
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622515
ECHR Judgment : Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life : Fifth Section
2822/16, [2018] ECHR 706
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622519
51477/15, [2018] ECHR 672
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622490
ECHR Judgment : Article 6+6-3-d – Right to a fair trial : Third Section
37617/10, [2018] ECHR 680
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622494
The applicant for asylum had been involved in an airport bomb attack killing 10 people. Asylum had been refused on the basis that this was a non-political crime. Though the organisation had political objectives, those were only indirectly associated with the bomb attach which was disproportionate to those aims.
Held: The involvement by the applicant in a bomb attack disqualified him from applying for asylum. The use of terrorism denied the possibility of protection for political views. For a crime to be political in nature, there had to be shown a direct relationship between the crime and the political aim. Not all terrorist acts fall outside the protection of the Convention, and not all means of investigating suspected terrorist acts fall outside the protection of the Convention.
Lord Mustill said: ‘although it is easy to assume that the appellant invokes a ‘right of asylum’, no such right exists. Neither under international nor English municipal law does a fugitive have any direct right to insist on being received by a country of refuge. Subject only to qualifications created by statute this country is entirely free to decide, as a matter of executive discretion, what foreigners it allows to remain within its boundaries.’
Lord Lloyd of Berwick said that in a case concerning an international convention it was obviously desirable that decisions in different jurisdictions should, so far as possible, be kept in line with each other.
Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mustill, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Times 23-May-1996, [1996] AC 742, [1996] Imm AR 443, [1996] 2 WLR 766, [1996] 2 All ER 865, [1996] UKHL 8
England and Wales
Appeal from – T v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 9-Nov-1994
Random violence without a causal connection with any political purpose was not a political crime. . .
Considered – Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison ex parte Cheng HL 16-Apr-1973
Lord Diplock traced the history of the political offence exception to offences requiring extradition, and emphasised the need for a connection between the impugned conduct and changes to government or government policy: ‘My Lords, the noun that is . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Sivakumar HL 20-Mar-2003
The appellant sought asylum. He had fled Sri Lanka. He was a Tamil and feared torture if he returned. His application had been rejected because the consequences flowed from his suspected involvement in terrorism, and that was not a Convention . .
Cited – Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others HL 9-Dec-2004
Extension oh Human Rights Beyond Borders
The appellants complained that the system set up by the respondent where Home Office officers were placed in Prague airport to pre-vet applicants for asylum from Romania were dsicriminatory in that substantially more gypsies were refused entry than . .
Cited – Sidhu and Others v British Airways Plc; Abnett (Known as Sykes) v Same HL 13-Dec-1996
The claimants had been air passengers who were unlawfully detained in Kuwait, when their plane was captured whilst on the ground on the invasion of Kuwait. They sought damages for that detention.
Held: There are no exceptions to the Warsaw . .
Cited – ST Eritrea, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Mar-2012
The Tribunal had confirmed the appellant’s refugee status, but the respondent had ordered nevertheless that she be returned. The judge’s order setting aside that decision had been overturned in the Court of Appeal.
Held: The claimant’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89678
Random violence without a causal connection with any political purpose was not a political crime.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Independent 04-Nov-1994, Times 09-Nov-1994
England and Wales
Appeal from – T v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 22-May-1996
The applicant for asylum had been involved in an airport bomb attack killing 10 people. Asylum had been refused on the basis that this was a non-political crime. Though the organisation had political objectives, those were only indirectly associated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89679
It was not unfair or a denial of the applicant’s human rights, to strike out a second action which differed only marginally in the parties involved, from an earlier action already struck out by the court for delay, and where the claimant had not yet satisfied a costs order made against him arising from that earlier action.
Times 02-Feb-2001
England and Wales
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89548
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 proceedings.
R. Ryssdal, P
Ind Summary 11-Apr-1994, Times 08-Mar-1994, 16757/90, [1994] Ser A No 282-A, [1994] ECHR 6
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited – Rex v Smellie CCA 1919
The defendant was accused of mistreating his eleven year old daughter. He was ordered to sit upon the stairs leading to the dock, out of her sight, in order to avoid her being intimidated.
Held: A judge could, using the courts own powers to . .
Cited – Rex v Lee Kun CCA 1916
Accused must hear and understand the proceedings
A judge, from the moment he embarks upon a trial until he is functus officio that trial, is under a duty to ensure that both the process and substance of the trial is fair, and that both are duly compliant with appropriate principles. Lord Reading . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89490
Employer insisting that an employee join a particular union on a site is not breaching the employees convention rights.
Hudoc Preliminary objection joined to merits (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 11
Ind Summary 24-May-1993, Times 17-May-1993, [1993] ECHR 18, 14327/88, [1993] ECHR 18
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89252
[2011] ECHR 885
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.446033
[2000] ECHR 502
Human Rights
See Also – Iatridis v Greece ECHR 25-Mar-1999
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection rejected (six month period); Violation of P1-1; Violation of Art. 13; Not necessary to examine . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.448084
1071/08, [2011] ECHR 1546
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.445018
23465/03, [2011] ECHR 1549
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.445007
595/08, [2011] ECHR 1545
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.445022