Criminal Law B Case Law

Ozturk v Germany

Applicant was required to pay for his neccessary interpreter because of his rights under Article 6 ECHR, determined use of Engel criteria

Engel Criteria

Article 6

1. What is the national classification of the offence?
2. How is it classified in other states?
3. Severity of punishment

Vendittelli v Italy

Reasonable time requirement, determined should take less than two years depending on criteria established

Venditelli Criteria

1. Complexity of Case
2. Conduct of Applicant
3. Conduct of Authorities
4. Courts dealing with Case

Niemetz v Germany

Niemetz had his home searched which he claimed violated Art 8 ECHR, established criteria for unreasonable search and seizure

Niemetz Criteria for Private Life

1. Was there an interference?
2. Was the interference in 'accordance with law'?
3. Did the interference pressure a legit interest?
4. Was the interference neccessary in a democratic society?

Letellier v France

Woman charged with being an accessory to murder was put on remand for an inordinate amount of time, violating Art 5(3) ECHR

Letellier Criteria

1. Persistence of reasonable suspicion of defendant
2. Risk of pressure on witness
3. Danger of ditching
4. Inadequacy of Court safeguards
5. Preservation of public order

Brogan et al v United Kingdom

Suspected terrorists in Northern Ireland, Court determined any detention period over 4 days is not prompt, one must be brought in front of judge by that time if to remain in custody

Khan v United Kingdom

Applicant searched for heroin but found clean, goes to another's house and admits to possession not aware of listening devices, determined violation of privacy but not self-incrimination rights

Saunders v United Kingdom

Saunders had DNA taken from him to determine guilt, ECHR determined this is deprecate from will of defendant and does not violate right against self-incrimination

Saunders Criteria for Self-Incrimination

1. Nature and degree of compulsion
2. Existence of relevant safe-guards
3. Use of evidence in criminal case

Jalloh v Germany

Seen taking plastic bags out of mouth and selling them to people, forced out of him medically, court determined because it was degrading and inhumane it violated Art 3 ECHR and therefore shouldn't have been used in court, violating Art 6 ECHR as well

Salduz v Turkey

Defendant accused of being part of unlawful protest for illegal organisation, denied lawyer in pre-trial court, claims confession was beaten out of him, determined lawyer should be available from start of interrogation

Allan v United Kingdom

Applicant confessed unaware he was talking to undercover police and could be used in court, determined violated freedom of privacy and rights against self-incrimination

Gafgen v Germany

Gafgan killed little boy and claimed ransom, arrested when picking up money and beaten and threatened to be raped by two huge black men to find where boy is, Government agreed there was a violation of Art 3 and 6 ECHR

De Salvador Torres v Spain

De Salvador Torres had criminal proceedings brought against him for embezzlement of public funds, changed to simple embezzlement, court determined if new charge is implicit of original than it does not violate Art 6(3) ECHR

Pelissier and Sassi v France

Applicants charged with criminal bankruptcy but convicted of aiding and abetting said crime, court determined actions taken for aiding and abetting are different than those needed to be proven for original crime and therefore there is a violation of Art 6(3) ECHR

Kolev et al

The minimum time one needs to be informed of a new charge to form a defense is before the start of a trial on the merits of the case (ECJ case)

Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia

Court determined states have a positive responsibility to protect its citizenry and seek justice in all available avenues, especially against modern slavery under Art 4 ECHR

De Cubber v Belgium

Cubber arrested for forgery, his investigating judge who had dealt with him before is also made on of his trial judges, court required both subjective and objective view of justice

Subjective Approach

Determining if the judge has any personal bias with the defendant, shown by ill-will in court

Objective Approach

"Justice must not only be done: it must be seen to be done."

Colozza v Italy

Colozza couldn't be tracked down and was unaware of proceedings against him, was named latitante, court determined government had responsibility to find him before trial in absentia

Lala v Netherlands

In Court of Appeal the applicant's defence was not allowed to defend because his client (the applicant) was not present, court found this violated Art 6 ECHR.

Schatschachwili v Germany

Further defined steps to determine acceptability of absent witness testimony and the order of them from the Al-Khawaja and Tahery judgement

Steps from Al-Khawaja and Tahery

1. Was there a good reason for witness' absence?
2. Was the evidence of the absent witness sole or decisive?
3. Were there sufficient counter-balancing factors?

Van Mechelan et al v Netherlands

Robbers convicted based on absent witness testimony, used zal-Khawaha and Tahery, anonymity not justified but that does not necessarily mean a violation, there were proper safeguards because they could cross-examine through audio device

Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v Georgia

Plea bargaining, determined not against Art 6 ECHR

Natsvlishvili & Togonidze Criteria

1. Defendant knowingly, willingly, and intelligently enters deal
2. Deal is subjected to proper judicial review

Kremzow v Austria

Former lawyer admits to killing P, later withdrew claiming admission was because of psychological disorder, was not permitted to be present in several hearings, court determined that the defendant must be present for questions of facts but only the lawyer need be present for questions of law

Taxquet v Belgium

Verdict did not provide reason for conviction as it was a jury trial, court determined this alone was not a breach if there are sufficient safeguards such as (sufficient) questions posed by judge to jurors