Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



Tags
#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Murray (John) v UK (1996 ) 22 EHRR 29
Facts: Murray was arrested, detained and later convicted of a terrorism-related offence in Northern Ireland. For the first 48 hours of his detention he had been denied access to legal advice and, on conviction, he was told that adverse inferences had been drawn from his refusal to answer police questions after his arrest. Murray complained to the Strasbourg Court that the combination of lack of legal advice and the drawing of the inferences by the criminal court had deprived him of a fair trial and legal process.
The findings in this case reveal some important features about the nature of Article 6 protection and the application of the proportionality test in this area. Even though the applicant strongly argued that the drawing of adverse inferences was in itself contrary to the spirit of Article 6(2) in particular, the court did not look at his claim in this absolutist way. Instead the judges assessed whether there was a justification, permitted by the law, for partial restriction of the ‘right’ to silence and against self-incrimination and decided that in the particular circumstances there was, especially as [...]. However, the applicant was successful in his claim relating to the restriction of access to legal advice in the very important first stage of the criminal process following arrest. The court clearly thought that this applicant and criminal defendants generally are particularly vulnerable to possible abuse of process at this early stage and found that there had been a breach of Article 6(1) taken together with Article 6(3)(c) in these circumstances, irrespective of how a lawyer may have advised in the first place.
Answer
the applicant had been cautioned at the start of the process about the possibility of adverse inferences being drawn

Tags
#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Murray (John) v UK (1996 ) 22 EHRR 29
Facts: Murray was arrested, detained and later convicted of a terrorism-related offence in Northern Ireland. For the first 48 hours of his detention he had been denied access to legal advice and, on conviction, he was told that adverse inferences had been drawn from his refusal to answer police questions after his arrest. Murray complained to the Strasbourg Court that the combination of lack of legal advice and the drawing of the inferences by the criminal court had deprived him of a fair trial and legal process.
The findings in this case reveal some important features about the nature of Article 6 protection and the application of the proportionality test in this area. Even though the applicant strongly argued that the drawing of adverse inferences was in itself contrary to the spirit of Article 6(2) in particular, the court did not look at his claim in this absolutist way. Instead the judges assessed whether there was a justification, permitted by the law, for partial restriction of the ‘right’ to silence and against self-incrimination and decided that in the particular circumstances there was, especially as [...]. However, the applicant was successful in his claim relating to the restriction of access to legal advice in the very important first stage of the criminal process following arrest. The court clearly thought that this applicant and criminal defendants generally are particularly vulnerable to possible abuse of process at this early stage and found that there had been a breach of Article 6(1) taken together with Article 6(3)(c) in these circumstances, irrespective of how a lawyer may have advised in the first place.
Answer
?

Tags
#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Murray (John) v UK (1996 ) 22 EHRR 29
Facts: Murray was arrested, detained and later convicted of a terrorism-related offence in Northern Ireland. For the first 48 hours of his detention he had been denied access to legal advice and, on conviction, he was told that adverse inferences had been drawn from his refusal to answer police questions after his arrest. Murray complained to the Strasbourg Court that the combination of lack of legal advice and the drawing of the inferences by the criminal court had deprived him of a fair trial and legal process.
The findings in this case reveal some important features about the nature of Article 6 protection and the application of the proportionality test in this area. Even though the applicant strongly argued that the drawing of adverse inferences was in itself contrary to the spirit of Article 6(2) in particular, the court did not look at his claim in this absolutist way. Instead the judges assessed whether there was a justification, permitted by the law, for partial restriction of the ‘right’ to silence and against self-incrimination and decided that in the particular circumstances there was, especially as [...]. However, the applicant was successful in his claim relating to the restriction of access to legal advice in the very important first stage of the criminal process following arrest. The court clearly thought that this applicant and criminal defendants generally are particularly vulnerable to possible abuse of process at this early stage and found that there had been a breach of Article 6(1) taken together with Article 6(3)(c) in these circumstances, irrespective of how a lawyer may have advised in the first place.
Answer
the applicant had been cautioned at the start of the process about the possibility of adverse inferences being drawn
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
y. Instead the judges assessed whether there was a justification, permitted by the law, for partial restriction of the ‘right’ to silence and against self-incrimination and decided that in the particular circumstances there was, especially as <span>the applicant had been cautioned at the start of the process about the possibility of adverse inferences being drawn. However, the applicant was successful in his claim relating to the restriction of access to legal advice in the very important first stage of the criminal process following arrest. The

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions


Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.