Search

A fair trial depends on the jury understanding the law they must apply and the issues they must decide. It was once thought that this necessitated elaborate directions on the law and lengthy summaries of the evidence. Successive refinements of the law, by appellate courts and legislatures, made jury directions so complex that judges struggled to avoid error and juries struggled to understand the directions they were given. In the past two decades, however, jurisdictions in the UK and Australia have been addressing this problem, recognising that simplicity and brevity in the summing up are essential to the the integrity of trial by jury. Alone in the common law world, Victoria chose legislation as the pathway to simplification. There is also consensus that the fair trial of sexual offences requires directions which address common misconceptions about how a victim would react. This cross-jurisdictional survey examines the different approaches adopted in pursuit of common goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ostensibly motivated by 'taking back control', is Brexit an opportunity to enhance the UK's capacity for self‐government? If driven by an aspiration to maximise the central state's governing autonomy, it confronts a paradox: governance structures at once enable action and constrain it. Exploring this paradox of structure, this article sets Brexit in long‐term perspective. As well as reshaping its external relations, Brexit inevitably unsettles the UK's internal structures, not least in (partly) disentangling he UK state and organised civil society from EU institutions and processes. Equally, those internal structures were themselves rarely static. Brexit has complicated the processes of their flux. The article introduces a symposium which addresses issues of this kind in three important domains: feminist civil society organisations (Minto), Westminster's role and scrutiny of European affairs (Cygan, Lynch and Whitaker) and the legal rights and access to justice of EU migrants under English law (Barnard and Fraser Burton). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The digital age of internet publishing has allowed the presence in the electronic media information about individuals that leads to their profiling. This can cause the members of the public who sit on juries to be influenced by the prejudicial content of those charged with a crime. The right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act can be compromised if the jury members are able to access a suspect's personal details and convey it to fellow members which can undermine the defendant's ability to be judged solely on the basis of the crime charged. In the UK the Juries Act 1974, as amended by the Criminal Courts and Justice Act 2015, serves to establish a procedure for trials that stipulates the removal of electronic device for a member of the jury who may not download information of the defendant in the course of the trial. The Contempt of Courts Act 1981 regulates the behaviour of the jury and provides sanctions for conduct that impinges on the court process. The English framework has parallels with the US and Australian legal systems where the jury is also fettered in accessing social media but where the access to the internet for communication about the case and blogging for jurors is permitted. The argument in this paper is that the misuse by the jury of information on the internet about the defendant should be preempted by a legal code that prevents access to the defendant's previous record. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Indictment-defendants tried and convicted on a different indictment to the one upon which they had been arraigned- each received a fair trial and were caused no prejudice--whether convictions invalid. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A number of human rights have come to play a material role in UK extradition law. An exception is that found in article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 protecting the right to a fair trial. It plays only a partial and limited role. That role has experienced contrasting fortunes. Whilst the right has come to have a degree of applicability within the UK in extradition hearings its extraterritorial operation has been further restricted. This article analyses the limited role of the right to a fair trial in extradition and highlights that contrasting evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This case comment considers the European Court of Human Rights decision of Ibrahim v United Kingdom on 13 September 2016. Relying on Salduz v Turkey, the applicants claimed, largely unsuccessfully, that denial of access to a lawyer during police questioning, and subsequent admission into evidence of statements made in the course of that questioning, violated fair trial rights protected by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The comment suggests that the decision's unusually emphatic statements about Article 6's 'internal structure' have consequences for assessing violations in future applications. Further, the decision creates greater room for public interest balancing in Article 6 cases. The decision may thus undermine the Article 6 guarantees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the decision of European Court of Human Rights in the case Schatschaschmli v Germany regarding aggravated robbery with extortion and the right to examine witnesses with the right to fair trial with factors permitting fair and proper assessment of evidence.

The article reports the decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in the case "R. v F" concerning laws of contempt of court. It mentions that in the case the court discusses whether and how far critical fair trial protections to be extended to prevent or control communications on social media.

The article discusses the Seton v United Kingdom, 2016 court case. Topics discussed include Seton who was the applicant being convicted for murder in 2008 for a 2006 shooting incident where shooter was not identified and it was claimed that the victim and shooter were in involved in drug offence; categorization of the case as having reluctant witness and allegation of the applicant that the murder was committed by an associate Pearson.

This article claims that minor offense processes in the common law and the civil law, as examined through two prototypical exemplars of England and Vietnam, have been converging at a more rapid pace and in a reverse trend compared to the convergence in the mainstream, serious crime processes. Because of the notion of nonseriousness, a natural convergence between the two systems in minor offenses is more obvious and less challenging than the convergence in the process for serious crimes. It is commonplace that the goals of regulation, prevention, and efficiency have predominated over the ideal of adversarialism, even in an adversarial system like England’s. This natural convergence is accompanied by a due-process-evading justice, in which criminal fair trial rights could be disproportionately limited by ideas of triviality and the so-called noncriminal character. The article also suggests a convergence in the jurisprudential framework as minor offense justice reflects limitations on fair trial rights in dealing with less serious public wrongs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the case R v A (No 2) of the Court of Appeal of Great Britain, wherein the court notes that attempts of the applications to adduce evidence of the previous sexual encounter as premature. It states pertinence of the case to the section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, and mentions the failure of judges to ensure that the introduction of sexual history evidence followed the correct procedure. It notes relevance of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The unmet demand for legal aid generally and for criminal law matters in particular, has grown in tandem with the expansion of crime control and increased restrictions on funding for publicly funded welfare and support services. This article examines the connection between legal aid, legal representation and the right to a fair trial. It presents an in-depth case study of Victorian case law and policy development to illuminate dilemmas in the prioritised allocation of legal aid resources in serious criminal trials. It then compares the Victorian courts' approach to a fair trial with the tenets of current European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence regarding the scope and timing of an accused person's right to access a lawyer. The comparison underlines the narrow definition of fair trial under Victorian common law, relative to Europe, where a fair trial is interpreted more broadly to include the right to legal representation during police and pre-trial investigations. The article questions whether international developments in access to legal aid for criminal trials and the extension of legal aid and representation to pre-trial procedures, most notably through the Salduz case (heard in the European Court of Human Rights), may inspire change in Victoria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article addresses the right to justice and access to legal aid in Great Britain. Topics discussed include role of courts when satisfied that excessive court fees operate to deny or even impede access to justice, challenges to legal aid provisions, and review undergone by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO).

The article reflects on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Ali (Abdulla) v United Kingdom related to the press reporting following conviction before retrial for the publication of widespread inaccurate material. It mentions the defendants had the right to a fair trial and the media reporting did not prejudice the due process of law. It also mentions the virulent press campaign could adversely affect the fairness of a trial and influence jurors.

The article reflects on the decision of Great Britain Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in the case R. v DS and TS in which two women was alleged for rape, falsely imprisoned and sexually assaulted in the course of abusive relationships. It mentions the case management as defendants charged with serious sexual offences and the prosecution providing piecemeal disclosure throughout trial. It also mentions that the possibility of fair trial for staying proceedings on ground of abuse of process.

This article proposes a recognition of five tiers of criminal justice reflecting five degrees of limitation on fair trial rights instead of the traditional notion of two tiers of indictable and summary processes in England and Wales. Over the last 15 years, the radical transformation of summary criminal processes has challenged the idea of ‘two tiers of justice’. Such measures as preventive orders, out-of-court disposals and regulatory offences process, which are characterised by higher levels of restriction on due process rights in comparison with the traditional summary process in Magistrates’ Court, should be considered new tiers. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The author reflects on the decision of the Great Britain Court of Appeal in the case R. v M regarding the evidence of previous convictions. Topics discussed include appellant was charged with the murder of his partner, the court held that the section 73(1) of Great Britain Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 related to the issue of proof rather than admissibility and foreign conviction regarding the fair trial as in the European Convention on Human Rights.

The article discusses the court case Horncastle and Others v. The United Kingdom involving four applicants who were convicted following trials in which the hearsay statements of unavailable witnesses were admitted as evidence against them. They argued the admission of hearsay evidence from unavailable witnesses violated their rights to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). All four applications were eventually dismissed.

The article offers information on the history, purpose and significance of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), which uses the powers of confiscation for civil recovery of the proceeds from crime in Great Britain. It informs that POCA addresses the challenges of money laundering, bribery and tax evasion. It discusses the significance of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in addressing tax crimes and frauds.

The article offers information on the analysis of the essence of the right to a fair trial under the English common law and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Topics discussed include the use of hearsay statement as evidence in prosecution of a fair trial, the decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Al-Khawaja v. United Kingdom and the fundamental human rights guarantee.

Under British law, the court has the inherent authority to set aside an indictment which, under the circumstances of the case, constitutes ‘abuse’ of the defendant. This unwritten rule had been accepted also by Israeli courts, and then came a completely new, not to say surprising, Act in 2007. The Israeli Parliament (the Knesset) has thereby recognised a preliminary argument which exploits concepts of ‘justice’ and ‘legal fairness’, and the granting of pro-discretion to the court, which may decide whether or not it is fitting and proper to conduct the trial against the defendant. How has the court reacted to that? As I will try to emphasise, judicial review upon prosecutorial discretion is rare, just a drop in the bucket, and the court is quite reluctant to implement the new tool. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The swingeing cuts to criminal legal aid may do irreparable damage to the defence side of the equality of arms. Coupled with this, the case of R v Jones gives the judge discretion to try in the defendant’s absence without representation or being present as a litigant-in-person. It is arguable that the defendant’s right to be heard will be chipped away at until the defence side is left legally crippled. The enactment of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is insular and neglects the defendant’s rights systemically. Without an adequate defence, squalid injustice will permeate and reverberate throughout the criminal justice system. Defendants cannot be corralled into court without the assistance of an advocate. The impact of the cuts falls on the litigant-in-person, thereby delimiting access to justice. Thus it disallows the opportunity to raise a proper defence. The sequela of the attack against the defence is a retreat back to the pre-1690s when defendants had very limited chances of being represented. Expense should not quell the right to be heard. Will the 2012 Act administer the coup de grace to the right to be heard or will Magna Carta be a heaven-sent ancient bulwark against this threat? [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The author discusses closed material procedures (CMPs) and the right to a fair trial. He argues that CMPs violate the right to a fair trial, a right protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and discusses the creation of the ECHR and how it interacts with laws in Great Britain. It will explore the history of CMPs, their origin and the expansion of their use. It also assesses the compatibility of CMPs with the ECHR and discusses the benefits and drawbacks of their use.

The article offers information on the law cases on expert evidence of drug traces. It mentions that the in cases when evidence of questionable relevance is being by the prosecution and that unsuccessful challenge to its reliability inflate its probative value. It also discusses the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 of Great Britain.

The article advocates that the implementation of independent legal representation (ILR) in adversarial proceedings as in case of rape proceedings, will aid in protecting the rights and interests of rape victims. It focuses on several issues including the oppositions raised against the introduction of ILR, right of an accused to a fair trial, and perception of incompatibility for a third party representation. It also introduces an ILR model that is compatible with some common law countries.

The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 imposed, for the first time in the history of English criminal procedure, a general duty on the defence to disclose the details of its case ahead of trial. These disclosure requirements have been augmented by the case management provisions of the Criminal Procedure Rules and judicial responses to the perceived need to tackle ambush defences. The defence disclosure regime has changed the role of the defence as a participant in the criminal process. It raises issues of principle in terms of its effect on fair trial rights and has implications for the nature of English criminal procedure. This article examines these issues and implica-tions; it reveals that the defence disclosure regime has caused a shift in the English criminal process further away from an adversarial style contest towards a participatory model of procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reflects on the author's legal career of over thirty years as a barrister representing migrants and asylum seekers in the UK. It exposes the consistently inhumane treatment meted out by successive governments to migrants and asylum seekers. It examines the ways in which such treatment is embodied in an ever-more punitive regulatory system, often implemented by powerful and profitable corporations, at the state's behest. The hallmarks of a free society (universal rights not to be detained arbitrarily; access to justice; to fair trial; freedom from double punishment; freedom of movement) and those of a humane one (access to subsistence, shelter and health care) have all been called into question. In the service of relentless 'common-sense' racism, the law has been deployed against migrants and asylum seekers. However, through the sustained efforts of migrants and their solidarity groups, human rights lawyers and impartial judges, it has also been used to resist executive abuses of power, exclusion and injustice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This note analyses the European Court of Human Rights' Grand Chamber judgment in Al- Khawaja and Tahery v United Kingdom, and gives it a cautious welcome. The note suggests how English Courts might respond to the judgment and concludes by assessing justifications for strong confrontation rights and the wider political context of the Grand Chamber's decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a speech by Michael Burton, Justice of the High Court of England and Wales, delivered at the South Carolina Journal of International Law & Business Symposium held at the University of South Carolina on September 20, 2012, in which he discussed competition laws for the U.S.-based companies in Great Britain, use of Human Rights Act 1998 by the U.S. companies as a tool, and article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) provided for fair trial.

A criminal libel trial in 1911 set the monarch against one of his subjects. Edward Mylius repeated a rumour that accused King George V of marrying Queen Mary when – secretly – the King had previously married someone else and had three children. The criminal charge, the process used to bring the issue to court, the advice to the King of the relevant ministers (including Winston Churchill as Home Secretary) and the trial itself stretched the boundaries of fairness. The legacy of the trial created a lingering problem. Can the monarch ever be required to face the direct scrutiny of examination by being required to appear as a witness in his or her own court to support a personal complaint? [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article focuses on the British court case R. v. Sardar (Aamir), which dealt with the defendant's right to a fair trial in litigation where a rape complainant's video interview and transcript are shown. Information is provided on disproportionate weight of transcripts evidence over oral evidence and the defendant's standing to appeal.

The article discusses a court case in which defendant and the co-accused were tried for their involvement in Great Britain's construction industry sub-contractors' exemption certificate fraud (CIS fraud). As mentioned, after the commencement of trial, defendant made an application to adduce evidence of co-defendant's bad character. The court ruled that co-defendant must be given fair trial and mentioned that defendant's evidence is insufficiently probative to meet the statutory conditions.

The article discusses the Great Britain Court of Appeals (Criminal Division) case R. v. Malcolm which deals with an appellant who removed the fixtures and fittings from his furnished flat prior to moving out, and his subsequent charge for theft of the landlord's property. The right to a fair trial is mentioned, along with section 6A of Great Britain's Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.

Abstract: This Article critically analyses the regime for intercepting the content of communications under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in the light of the recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in Kennedy v the UK. It looks at the safeguards for privacy protection provided such as the requirement for a warrant and the roles of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and the Interception of Communications Commissioner and whether these safeguards are compliant with Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No 3), the House of Lords decided that Article 6 ECHR requires a ‘core irreducible minimum’ of procedural fairness such that ‘the controlled person must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him to give effective instructions to the Special Advocate’. This case-note will discuss the challenges facing Special Advocates in control order proceedings and the impact AF may have on the measure of procedural fairness owed to individuals in closed proceedings. It will also address the judicial use of sections 2 and 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in arriving at the outcome in AF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses a British Court of Appeal Criminal Division case involving an individual facing an indictment of specimen historic indecent assaults covering the period between 1976 and 1985. It is noted that the judge concluded that the difficulties faced by the accused could not be remedied through the trial process, and that a fair trial would not be possible. The facts of the case are also given, as well as a commentary on the case.

The author explores the extent to which the British provisions for a defendant to be tried on indictment by a judge sitting without a jury conflict with the defendant's right to a fair trial in the presence of public interest immunity (PII). He discusses the justification for the use of the PII procedure in the magistrates' court, the compatibility of PII applications with the right to a fair trial, and two recent reported cases.

The article discusses the court case R. v. Horncastle wherein the British Court of Appeal held that the appellants received a fair trial in the circumstances of the two appeals. At issue was whether the regime enacted by the Parliament in relation to the admission evidence of an absent witness at a criminal trial would result in an unfair trial. The court also determined whether jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights requiring the English court to apply statutory regime relating to hearsay rule is contrary to the intention of the Parliament.

The article reports the decision of the Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court in Wales) in the case "R. (on the application of Hewitt) v Denbighshire Magistrates"Court." Topics discussed include laws governing district Judge's bias; judge ' failure to disclose this fact before trial and right to fair trial in the country.

The use of anonymous testimony in England and Wales has recently been the subject of a number of high-profile appellate decisions and legislative intervention. As the law currently stands, it is permissible for the criminal courts to receive such testimony, subject to certain safeguards. This article evaluates the position against the threshold for anonymous evidence laid down by the European Court of Human Rights. It is argued that such evidence is too readily admissible under the current legislative framework. As such, the rules regulating the use of anonymous testimony should be amended so that they comply fully with the fair trial rights of the accused. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a court case wherein the British Court of Appeal allowed the defendant's appeal on grounds of unfair trial. In R. v. O'Dowd, the appellant was convicted of false imprisonment, threatening to kill, two rapes, sexual assault and poisoning. At issue is the length of trial which lasted for about six and a half months. The court also considered the application of the bad character evidence under the Criminal Justice Act of 2003.

The article discusses the application of DNA fingerprinting as forensic techniques to help in the development of a national DNA database in Great Britain. It presents two court case related to serious offenses by DNA profiles, which include the 11-year old applicant S. charged with attempted robbery, and applicant Marper, charged with harassment. It notes the significance of the decision from the court cases with respect to the general jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. It refers to the decision of the Grand Chamber, saying that the government must release a legislative response which discusses the uncertainty of balancing privacy and fair trail rights.

The article discusses the court case R v. Mayers, which highlighted when orders to testify witnesses anonymously in criminal trials can be granted under the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008 in Great Britain. The 2008 Act empowers courts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to grant anonymity orders. In this lawsuit, the Court of Appeal declared that the 2008 Act did not authorise the granting of anonymity order for a witness who is too frightened to testify.

The article examines the approach of the English courts to the application of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, or the Convention, as regards commercial arbitration proceedings taking place in England and Wales, which thereby, pursuant to the Arbitration Act 1996, or the 1996 Act, fall under the courts' supervision. On a number of decisions, the courts rejected arguments based on the apparent inconsistency between Article 6 rights and procedure adopted in arbitration proceedings.

“It is abundantly clear that fair trials are undermined by prejudicial publicity”, writes Woffinden, who has been studying miscarriages of justice for 20 years. He continues: “…in the current anarchy both the media and the prosecution can virtually do as they please. Indeed, the boundaries have lately been stretched even further. Some Crown lawyers – perhaps perceiving themselves as U.S.-style district attorneys – have become disgracefully opportunist in thrusting themselves into the media spotlight and holding press conferences to announce the bringing of charges.” Woffinden lists cases in which media prejudice may have affected the result and presents a three-point plan to ensure that such cases of contempt are eliminated [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses the fair trial case R. v Abdroikov handled by the British Court of Appeal in 2005. Application of the Human Rights Act 1998 in the case; Argument presented by the court in its ruling that the presence of a police officer or prosecuting solicitor did not of itself offend the principle of fairness; Commentary on the decision on the case.

The article focuses on the requirement for cases from the youth courts in Great Britain, to comply with Article Six of the European Convention on Human Rights. The witnesses in trials involving charges of sex, violence, neglect or kidnapping are deemed in need of special protection. It is apt that the definitive ruling with fair trial guarantees should have been made on appeal from trials of juvenile witnesses and defendants.

This note analyses a recent case of the European Court of Justice in which the applicant, a 14-year old rape victim, alleged that Bulgarian criminal law violated her rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights in pursuing a practice of only prosecuting rape where there was evidence of the use of physical force and active resistance. In upholding the applicant’s claims, the Court re-affirmed the positive obligation on states to adopt measures to ensure that fundamental rights under the Convention were secured. In particular, in the case of rape, this required the enactment and application of criminal laws effectively prescribing all acts of non-consensual sex and not just those involving physical violence. In this way the Court affirmed not only that rape was, in essence, a violation of personal sexual autonomy but also that legal systems which failed adequately to protect against all forms of rape risked operating in breach of Convention obligations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the decisions on admissibility of the European Court of Human Rights on several cases. In the case of Martinie versus France, a Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights declared the application of the right to a fair trial admissible. In the Ashworth and Others versus the United Kingdom case, a Chamber of the Court declared the application of the right to respect for private and family life and protection of property inadmissible. In the case of Berdzenishvili versus Russia, a Chamber of the Court declared the application of the prohibition of discrimination inadmissible.