Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Article 6- right to a fair trial - Coggle Diagram
Article 6- right to a fair trial
open courts
FOR: prevents an abuse of power by ensuring justice is seen to be done
Scott v Scott – The House of Lords ruled that justice should not be administered in secret, except in exceptional circumstances.
Open justice allows public scrutiny, making it harder for courts to act unfairly.
The press and public can hold courts accountable, reducing the risk of corruption or bias.
AGAINST: some cases may be harmed by public exposure
Cases involving sexual offences
T&V v UK- harmed by the public nature of the case
some cases need to be heard in private
e.g national security reasons
youth defendants to protect their welfare are held in youth courts so they can participate without unnecessary pressure
Exceptions should only be allowed when necessary, with clear safeguards to prevent abuse.
equality of arms
FOR: legal aid provided to ensure that defendants have access to legal representation
Steel and Morris v UK- lack of legal aid for defendants was a violation of art 6 when they were up against such a strong legal team
Principle of equality of arms is that both the prosecution and defence should have a fair opportunity to present their case.
Children and vulnerable Vs allowed given a fair opportunity of participation.
T&V v UK- didn't fully understand the proceedings of their case in the crown court, was a violation
No absolute right to receive the same level of legal representation
AG Ref (No 82 of 2000)- doesn't mean legal representation equal in funding and quality to that of the prosecution.
Restrictions in disclosure of evidence.
As prosecution doesn't have to disclose all evidence (e.g. National security reasons) it can be hard for defendants to build their case
Children
even after T&V v UK children can still be tried in the crown court going against the idea of fully understanding
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act
s34 CJPOA 1994
FOR: Helps prevent suspects from avoiding conviction by staying silent.
Allows courts to draw negative inferences if a defendant refuses to answer police questions.
Murray v UK – drawing negative inferences from silence does not always breach Article 6, provided there are safeguards.
AGAINST: right to silence is fundamental for a fair trial, protects against self-incrimination and police coercion
Vulnerable suspects may struggle to answer police questions but face unfair assumptions.
Road Traffic Act 1988 requires a person stopped for suspected drink driving to tell the police who was driving the car- this differs from the idea of CJPOA
Access to justice
FOR: Legal help/ aid for those who cant afford a lawyer. allows them to receive representation
Steel and Morris v UK- denying representation made the trial unfair and was violation
The right to access a lawyer is protected.
Golder v UK– The ECtHR ruled that refusing a prisoner access to a solicitor was a breach of his right to a fair trial. Showed legal representation must be available, even in difficult circumstances.
The court system provides multiple levels of appeal, ensuring errors can be corrected.
Higher courts, such as the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, allow individuals to challenge unfair decisions, improving overall justice.
AGAINST: Legal fees and costs
Gov't cuts to legal aid make it harder for lower income individuals to get representation
Time restraints-
Some cases must be brought within a specific timeframe (e.g., personal injury claims within three years), which can prevent legitimate claims from being heard.
Blanket of protection
denied the right to sue certain institutions
Osman v UK- police had a blanket of protection from being sued in negligence, restricting victims’ access to justice.
Despite protections under Article 6, financial and procedural barriers still limit many individuals from properly accessing the courts.
Cuts to legal aid and rising court fees mean that justice is becoming a privilege for the wealthy, rather than a universal right.