Read Aloud the Text Content

This audio was created by Woord's Text to Speech service by content creators from all around the world.

Text Content or SSML code:

Article 6 – Right to a Fair Trial 1In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights ato be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him bto have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence cto defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require dto examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him eto have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court. GENERAL RULE right generally requires an open i.e. public trial that follows proper process to ensure it takes place within a reasonable time before an independent and impartial judge. EXCEPTION 1 The principle of open justice may be derogated from in certain circumstances, as set out in art. 61 When is Article 6 Engaged • Civil Cases Art. 6 applies only after a matter has been determined Bank Mellat v HM Treasury No. 2 2013. • Criminal Cases Art. 6 is engaged as soon as an individual is charged. In P Children Disclosure, the court considered whether a husband, in a divorce case, could prevent statements he made in proceedings from being referred to the police. He sought to protect himself from potential selfincrimination. However, the court ruled against him, stating that he was not seeking the right not to selfincriminate under Article 6 but rather asking for absolute protection from the consequences of selfincrimination. The court clarified that while Article 6 includes the right not to selfincriminate, it does not provide immunity from the use of selfincriminating statements in all contexts, such as in legal proceedings outside criminal trials. Requirements for a Fair Trial Art. 61 3 1. Independence Impartiality Art. 61 • McGonnell v UK 2000 Involved a Guernsey planning application where some individuals who made the initial decision to reject the application also sat on the appeal board. The European Court of Human Rights held that this violated the principle of fairness and the Separation of Powers, as it created a conflict of interest and an unfair procedure. • R v Stow 2006 Stow, who had been convicted by a court martial for a military offense. The central issue in the case was the role of the prosecutor in the court martial process. Stow argued that the influence exerted by the prosecutor, who also had a judicial role in the tribunal, led to a breach of the right to a fair trial under Article 61 ECHR. Specifically, Stow contended that the separation of powers was compromised because the prosecutor was not independent of the tribunal. HoL ruled in favor of Stow and held that court martials must adhere to the same fairness standards as civil courts. 2. Trial Within a Reasonable Time Art. 61 • HM Advocate v JK 2023 A 27month delay for a 14yearold’s trial deemed unreasonably long. 3. Fair Procedure Art. 61 3 • Safeguards which must be followed Art. 63ae • Right to be informed promptly of the naturecause of accusation. • Right to adequate time and facilities for defense preparation. • Right to legal representation, including free legal aid if necessary Airey v Ireland 1979, Benham v UK 2003 art. 63c. This right is limited by practical issues such as legal aid, evidence or witnesses. • Right to examine witnesses. • Right to an interpreter if needed. • Key Cases • John Murray v UK 1996 It is unlawful to deny access to legal advice s. 58 PACE. ECtHR held that denying access to legal advice can breach the right to a fair trial under Article 6. While delays in legal advice are permitted under s. 58 PACE up to 36 hours and Sch. 8, para. 7 TA 2000 up to 48 hours for terrorism cases if properly authorised, legal representation is crucial during pretrial stages. The Court found that restricting access to a lawyer during postarrest questioning placed the suspect at an unfair disadvantage, violating Article 61 and 63c. • Brennan v UK 2002 The presence of a police officer whilst the defendant talked to a solicitor prejudiced the trial process and breached art. 61 when read with art. 63c. • R Daly v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2001 Any interference must be proportionate so consider whether there was a more proportionate alternatives available to the public authority. Daly, a prisoner, challenged a policy allowing prison officers to search legal correspondence in his absence. He argued that this violated his Art 8 Private life Correspondence. HoL ruled in favour of Daly, holding that the blanket policy of searching legal correspondence was disproportionate • R v Abdurahman 2005 A breach of Art. 6 does not automatically make a conviction unfair. Abdurahman was arrested in connection with a terrorist investigation. Under PACE 1984, the police delayed his access to legal advice for over 48 hours, justifying it on national security grounds. CoA upheld this. • Coventry v UK 2015 Excessive legal costs can breach Art. 6. Mr. Coventry was ordered to pay excessive legal costs after losing a civil case about property rights. The costs included success fees and insurance premiums under the UK’s conditional fee agreements CFA system, leading to a total amount that was disproportionately high compared to the damages awarded. ECtHR ruled that the costs order breached Article 6 because it created a serious financial barrier to justice. It also violated Article 1, Protocol 1 right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions because the excessive costs unfairly burdened Coventry’s financial situation. Presumption of Innocence Right to Silence Art. 62 Implicit in the presumption of innocence is that detainees have a right to silence. • Presumption of Innocence R Wright Others v SoS for Health 2009 Mr. Wright and others were care workers who were placed on a provisional blacklist under the Care Standards Act 2000, preventing them from working in the care sector before they had an opportunity to challenge the allegations against them. They argued this violated their right to a fair trial Art 6 and right to work and HoL upheld this. • Right to Silence • John Murray v UK 1996 Silence can lead to adverse inferences but cannot be the sole basis of conviction. Murray was arrested in Northern Ireland under antiterrorism laws and was denied access to a lawyer for 48 hours. During questioning, he remained silent, and the court later drew adverse inferences from this silence, contributing to his conviction. ECtHR ruled that while adverse inferences from silence can sometimes be permissible, denying legal advice for 48 hours was a violation of Article 61 and 63c hence, D must have access to legal advice before adverse inferences can be drawn. • Saunders v UK 1996 Defendants cannot be forced to selfincriminate. Saunders, a company director, was compelled to answer questions during an investigation into corporate fraud. His statements were later used as evidence in his criminal trial, contributing to his conviction. He argued that this violated his right to a fair trial under Article 61. ECtHR ruled that this violated Art 6 and established that statements compelled in regulatory investigations cannot be used in criminal proceedings. Moreover, per Austria v Italy 1961 ECtHR ruled that courts must collect all relevant evidence to ensure that the accused’s right to a fair trial is upheld. This includes making sure that both the prosecution and the defense have access to all pertinent evidence that might be important for the case. • Condron v UK 2000 If a lawyer advised silence, no adverse inferences can be drawn. Condron was arrested and questioned about drugrelated offenses. During police questioning, he remained silent, invoking his right not to selfincriminate. At trial, the court drew adverse inferences from his silence, which contributed to his conviction. He argued that this violated his Art 6. ECtHR ruled that adverse inferences should not have been drawn from Condron’s silence because it was based on advice from his legal counsel. Admissibility of Evidence in Criminal Trials NOTE Provisions concerning the admissibility of evidence can be applied differently by English courts vs the ECtHR under the margin of appreciation” • R v Horncastle 2009 Hearsay evidence can be admissible if the witness is unavailable and the evidence is still deemed reliable. Horncastle was convicted of murder based on hearsay evidence a witness statement that was made but the witness could not be crossexamined because they were unavailable. Horncastle challenged the use of this evidence, arguing it violated his right to a fair trial under Article 61 yet the Supreme Court still upheld conviction. • AlKhawaja Tahery v UK 2011 Convictions can be based on absent witness testimony if very strong procedural safeguards exist. The applicants, were convicted of serious offenses, largely based on hearsay evidence witness statements from people who were unavailable to testify in court. They argued that their convictions violated their right to a fair trial under Article 61, as they could not crossexamine the absent witnesses. The ECtHR considered the quality of the evidence, the defendants’ ability to challenge the evidence, and the overall fairness of the trial, and upheld conviction. • R v A Complainant’s Sexual History 2001 Courts can admit sexual history evidence if exclusion would make the trial unfair. The defendant, A, was charged with rape. He wanted to introduce evidence of the complainant’s sexual history to challenge her credibility and suggest that she had consented to the sexual activity. The trial judge initially ruled that the evidence was inadmissible under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which limits the admissibility of such evidence in rape trials. Control Orders Under Article 6 Control Orders engage art. 6 as they deal with a determination of an individuals civil rights and obligations. • Re MB 1997 Those subject to Control Orders must be able to challenge them and should be given access to the closed evidence against them. MB, a man with a mental disorder, was detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. He contested his detention, arguing that the procedures under the Act, which allowed his detention based on evidence from psychiatrists without his own legal representation, violated his right to a fair trial under Article 6. HoL held that the proceedings leading to MB’s detention did not violate Article 6 because they were not criminal in nature, as the detention was for medical treatment rather than punishment. However, HoL ruled that procedural safeguards such as the right to challenge evidence should be present in such hearings to ensure a fair process. • SoS for Home Dept v HF 2013 Allegations must be specific not drafted in general terms. HF was a foreign national who faced deportation from the UK after serving a prison sentence. The Secretary of State argued that HF posed a threat to national security and should be removed. However, HF challenged the decision on the grounds that certain evidence, which was relevant to his case, was not disclosed to him in full due to national security concerns. HF argued that the vaguelimited disclosure of evidence violated Art 6. Supreme Court favoured HF, noting that the generality of the allegations made it harder for him to effectively defend himself. Deportation under Article 6 • Othman v UK 2012 Deportation is unlawful if the individual risks trial based on tortureextracted evidence. Abu Qatada whose real name is Othman, a Jordanian national, was facing deportation from the UK to Jordan, where he risked being tried on charges of terrorismrelated offenses. He argued that the evidence against him in Jordan had been obtained through torture. Othman claimed that his deportation to a country where torture was involved in the criminal justice system would violate his right to a fair trial under Article 6. ECtHR ruled that deporting him would violate Article 6 because there was a real risk that the evidence used in his trial in Jordan could be tainted by torture and therefore unreliable. ECtHR reinforced that the right to a fair trial is a fundamental right, and the use of such evidence would undermine the fairness of the trial, especially considering the lack of sufficient safeguards in Jordan to ensure a fair trial free from the use of torturederived evidence.