Criminal Law - Case Criteria + Summaries | Quizlet

Vendittelli v Italy Summary

Article 6(1) ECHR

- Mr. Venditelli's flat was sealed on grounds that he had infringed the town planning regulations
- lodged three applications to release his property but trials and hearings kept being postponed and adjourned
- waited approximately four years
- claimed violation of Art 6(1) ECHR because length of proceedings was unreasonable
- court upheld that the length of proceedings had not been violated as he prolonged the hearings himself through adjournments

Criteria for reasonableness of time period
(Venditelli v Italy)

Article 6(1) ECHR

1. Complexity of case
--- if complex, takes more time to gather evidence
2. Conduct of applicant
3. Conduct of state/relevant authority
4. What was at stake for the applicant
--- sentence, salary, not having access to the house, etc...

Assessment of reasonable time:
1) Establishing relevant time (start of charge--> final decision)
2) Applying criteria

Öztürk v Germany Summary

Article 6(3)(e) ECHR

- Turkish citizen got in a car crash and was charged with causing a road accident by careless driving
- went to court and had to pay court fees which included interpreter fees so filed an appeal on Article 6(3)(e) which states that everyone charged with a criminal offense shall have the right to free assistance of an interpreter
- state claimed that it was not a criminal offense and thus did not apply but court ruled in applicant's favor

Engel v Others Criteria
(Öztürk v Germany)

determines whether Article 6 ECHR is applicable (is it a criminal offense?)

Criteria:
1. classification of offense under national law

2. nature of the offense
--- offense should be criminal in nature
--- addressed to everyone
--- sanction should have retributive goal

3. nature and degree of severity of the penalty --- the more severe the sanction, the more severe the criminal offense, concerns maximum sentence that can be imposed must serve a punitive purpose

Brogan v Others

Article 5(1) + 5(3) ECHR

- applicants from Ireland were accused of terrorism under IRS and taken into custody for five days
- lesson: must be brought before a judge within 4 days and 6 hours ('promptly' rule)

---- judges are independent (police is not, part of executive branch) so detainees must be brought before a judge to achieve fair trial to assess legitimacy of arrest
---- 'promptly' means when someone is arrested, the arrestee must be brought before a judge within four days, once arrest is declared legitimate, must justify and substantiate every extension of continued detention

Letellier v France Summary

Article 5(3) + 5(4) ECHR

- Mrs. Letellier charged with accessory to murder of her husband by paying two men
- was released and re-detained for 3 years
- Mrs. Letellier complained that Article 5(3) ECHR violated because time spent in pre-trial detention was unreasonably long and Article 5(4) ECHR because one application for release was not dealt with speedily enough
- court ruled that Art 5(3) had been violated because no good reason to keep her detained but Art 5(4) not because appeals had been answered in a reasonable timeframe

Letellier v France Criteria

Article 5(3) ECHR
determines if there has been a violation of Art 5(3) in conjunction with Art 5(1)(c) when a person does not get released from detention

Criteria
1) Persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person has committed the crime

2) Relevant and sufficient grounds for the persons continued detention
--- When it is necessary to prevent the defendant from influencing the witness (becomes less relevant with time)
--- Absconding (this cannot be the only reason, If it is the accused must be released with sufficient guarantees)
--- Public order bring disturbedterm-12
--- Adequacy of court supervision has to be evaluated

Niemietz v Germany Summary

Article 8 ECHR

- Mr. Niemietz's law office was searched to find evidence and information regarding the identify of 'Klaus Wegner'
- Court upheld that the search of the law office constituted an interference with Article 8(1) ECHR because it interfered with the confidential relationship between a client and attorney by going through sensitive files containing sensitive information and the warrant had no safeguards

lesson: right to private life extended to include workplaces and office where privacy is needed (extensive interpretation of home and private life) and thus falls within the scope of Article 8

Violation of Article 8 ECHR Criteria
(Niemietz v Germany)

1. Has there been an interference with one of the rights mentioned in Art 8(1) ECHR?
--- private life and home need to be interpreted extensively
--- private life, family life, home and correspondence

2. Was the activity of the state authority in accordance with domestic law?
--- Khan v UK - law must respect rule of law, be accessible and foreseeable

3. Did the interference pursue a legitimate aim?
--- activity must have been taken in one of the interests in Article 8(2) ECHR

4. Was it necessary in a democratic society?
--- action must be proportionate and there must be some independent observer)

Khan v the UK Summary

Article 8 + 6(1) ECHR

- applicant 's cousin was found with heroin and arrested for smuggling drugs into the UK
- later the applicant was implicated in a conversation recorded on a listening device at a friend's place, discussing drug importation
- evidence led to the applicant's arrest and the recorded conversation was deemed crucial
- applicant filed arguing that evidence obtained by the listening device should not have been been admissible and violated Art 8 and 6(1) ECHR

conclusion: the use obtained evidence did not conflict with requirements of fairness in Article 6 because while not obtained legally under Article 8, the applicant did have ample opportunity to challenge use of recording (made use of this opportunity and defended himself), court would have excluded evidence if it raised substantive unfairness

lesson: breach of Article 8 of the Convention did not automatically render evidence inadmissible under the judge's discretion

Saunders v UK Summary

Article 6(1) ECHR

- applicant was tied with Guinness company illegally manipulating the price of shares
- interviewed nine times by an inspector (outside criminal proceedings) and these interview transcripts were later used in court
- suspect obligated to testify under threat of sanctions and denied a fair trail where statements were taken under compulsion
- right to silence and right not to incriminate oneself

Saunders v UK Rule

right not to incriminate oneself does not extend to materials which have an existence independent of the will of the suspect (breath, blood, urine samples, bodily tissue, DNA) but those are dependent (testimonial evidence) do apply

Jalloh v Germany Summary

Article 6 + 3 ECHR

- applicant swallowed a bagful of cocaine when being questioned by the police regarding his drug dealings and proceeded to be force administered emetics so he would regurgitate the evidence
- while in prison, the applicant complained of pain and physical complications after the force insertion of the tube but no medical history or documentation was brought before the court
- applicant later submitted that the administering of emetics was a disproportionate measure of obtaining the evidence and caused him bodily harm in performing their duties and inhuman and degrading treatment which violated Article 3

- conclusion: Court upholds that Article 3 ECHR was violated as the procedure constituted inhuman and degrading treatment. It was a grave interference with his physical and mental integrity and that it brought the applicant feelings of fear, anguish, humiliation, debasement, inferiority and health risks

Jalloh v Germany Criteria
Article 3 ECHR

Criteria to assess necessity of forcible medical intervention for evidence

1. Extent to which forcible medical intervention was necessary to obtain the evidence
2. Health risks for the suspect
3. Manner in which the procedure was administered
4. Physical and mental suffering the procedure caused
5. Degree of medical supervision available
6. Effects on suspects health

Jalloh v Germany Criteria
Article 6 ECHR
(Gafgen v Germany)

determines whether use of evidence obtained by force violates the right to a fair trial under Art 6

Criteria:
1. Nature and degree of compulsion used to obtain the evidence

2. Weight of the public interest in the investigation and punishment of the offense in issue

3. Existence of any relevant safeguards in the procedure

4. Use to which any material so obtained is put (was it decisive?)

Gäfgen v Germany Summary

Article 3 + 6 ECHR

- Applicant kidnapped and killed a child and when being interrogated by the police, he was threatened by the police to disclose the location of the child where he later confessed
- applicant was the schoolmate of the victim and when kidnapped, asked the family to pay a ransom of €1 million but proceeded to dispose of the body under the jetty
- police officer was ordered to threaten the applicant with serious pain and sexual abuse under the impression that the child was still alive
- infringement of Article 3 while collecting evidence does not automatically render Article 6 violated

Gäfgen v Germany Criteria
Article 3

1. Duration of the treatment
2. Physical and mental effects
3. Purpose for which the treatment was inflicted and motivation behind it

Salduz v Turkey Summary

Article 6(3)(c) ECHR

- young boy arrested in turkey regarding an illegal demonstration and interrogated without counsel, given his rights on paper and confessed
- later withdrew his confession despite it being the primary evidence used by prosecution
- claims his statement was extracted under duress and was denied access to a lawyer

lesson: access to a lawyer should be provided from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police unless there are compelling reasons to restrict this right
--- lawyer does not have to be present in the interrogation room
--- access is required as a safeguard so that everyone knows their rights
--- exceptions: if accused waives right to a lawyer or lawyer is suspected to relay info between criminal organizations

Allan v UK Summary

Article 6(1) + 8 ECHR

- right to remain silent
- privilege against self-incrimination
- right to respect privacy and family life

- applicant arrested for suspicion of murder and used his right to remain silent
- police used an informant with cameras and listening devices to capture conversations with the accused in his jail cell
- sentenced to life imprisonment and his appeal for admissibility of the recorded info was denied

Allan V UK Criteria

Article 6 ECHR

1. nature and degree of compulsion
2. existence of any relevant safeguard procedures
3. use to which any material so obtained is put

*another important lesson is that an informant has the functional equivalent of a police interrogation
- while in Khan v UK the confession was spontaneous and unprovoked, this use of an informant and listening devices was calculated and thus falls under Article 6 jurisdiction

De Salvador Torres v Spain Summary

Article 6(3)(a) ECHR

- applicant was head admin of hospital and made a deal with the bank to pay fees at a higher rate than legal interest
- initially charged with "embezzlement of public funds", but later changed to "corruption of civil servant", "simple embezzlement" and finally simple embezzlement with an aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public nature of his position
- applicant claimed that he should have been informed promptly of change in charge as aggravating circumstance was not laid down in original accusation

Salvador Torrez v Spain Rule

a change in the original accusation is possible and needs to be communicated if the change contains an elements extrinsic to the original accusation
- if intrinsic, accused does not need to be informed

* also relevant to Pélissier and Sassi v France

Pélissier and Sassi v France Summary

Article 6(1) + 6(3)(a) ECHR

- two men charged with criminal bankruptcy but later convicted for aiding and abetting criminal bankruptcy
- not informed of charge for aiding and abetting instead of full offense
--- conclusion: violation of article 6(3) a and b bc different elements to defend in these charges
--- reclassification of facts during the course of proceedings, resulting in a different charge put against the defendant (which doesn't contain an element intrinsic to the original accusation) fails to comply with rights enshrined Article 6(3) a and b taken with 6(1) ECHR, thus unfair trial

Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia Summary

Article 2 + 4 ECHR

- applicant's daughter was a Russian national who moved to Cyprus to work as an 'artiste' but later died after jumping out a window
- applicant (victims father) claims that the investigation did not do enough to respect her right to life (Art 2) and right not to be trafficked (Art 4)
--- Court upheld that there is an obligation by states to conduct an effective, official investigation
---- Cyprus violated Article 2 but Russia did not as it did not take place on their soil and they fulfilled their obligations by pressuring Cyprus to conduct an investigation
---- however both violated Art 4 by not preventing or effectively protecting people from human trafficking

Rantsev v Cyrpus and Russia Article 2 Rule

the government has to effectively investigate a persons death if they die in a suspicious situation or by force

Rantsev v Cyrpus and Russia Criteria
Article 4

1. Did the state provide appropriate legislation and administration framework to protect citizens against human trafficking?
--- measures to prevent trafficking, protect victims and punish traffickers

2. Was there a positive obligation to take protective measures?
--- Were the state authorities aware or should have been aware of the risk or circumstances of the trafficking? Did the authorities fail to take appropriate measures to remove the individual from the situation or risk?

3. Existence of procedural requirement to investigate human trafficking
--- persons responsible for carrying out investigation must be independent (hierarchically, institutionally and practically)
--- investigation must be capable of leading to the identification/punishment of those responsible
--- promptness and reasonable expedition
--- next of kin of the victim must be involved in the procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard his legitimate interests

De Cubber v Belgium Summary

Article 6(1) ECHR

- applicant sees that the current judge evaluating his arrest warrant for forgery was his investigative and trial judge in previous cases of his
- conclusion: court upheld that the judge having ruled in other applicant's cases did not constitute a breach of Art 6(1) of having an impartial tribunal
--- however, being both the investigative and trial judge did breach Art 6 bc he could have formed an opinion on evidence from the investigation process not admitted to the proceedings and thus a breach of objective impartiality
- subjective v objective approach

lesson: a judge that's not independent can still be impartial but not other way around

De Cubber v Belgium Criteria

Objective v Subjective Test

subjective:
-- there is a violation of the subjective impartiality of the tribunal if the judge has somehow expressed a personal bias against the applicant
-- clear sign of bias, personal conviction

objective:
-- there is a violation of the objective impartiality of the tribunal if the judge is associated with the applicant or witness, or has roles outside of being a trial judge
-- takes into account appearances, hierarchical or other links between the judge and others involved in the case, extent and nature of decisions, and an examination of functions exercised and internal organization of the judiciary
-- applicant must be offered a guarantee that there is no legitimate doubt in the above factors

Colozza v Italy Summary

Article 6(1) ECHR

- applicant was an Italian citizen charged with committing fraud and other offenses
- authorities tried to deliver criminal proceedings info but failed as he was not living in the registered address and couldn't be located
- declared 'latitante' (person willfully evading the execution of a warrant issued by a court)
- tried and arrested and applicant tried to raise a late appeal as he was wrongfully declared latinante which was declared inadmissible
- trial in absentia

conclusion: Court considers Art 6 ECHR to be infringed upon because the defendant was not notified in person, he did not waive his right and the state authorities' attempt to find him were inadequate
--- also proclaim that the Italian "late appeal" system does not satisfy the criteria of the ECHR because it does not constitute a sufficient safeguard

Colozza v Italy Criteria

determines whether holding the trial in absentia is a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR

1. Did the accused voluntarily waive his right to be present in an unequivocal manner?

2. Did the state authorities exercise a reasonable amount of due diligence in their attempts to contact the accused?

3. Was there a possibility of a re-trial where the court may assess the merits of the case?

Lala v Netherlands Summary

Article 6(1) + 6(3)(c) ECHR

- applicant convicted of forgery by trial in absentia for concealing income to avail social security benefits
- did not appear in court for fear of being arrested for unpaid fines and waived right to be present during hearings
- applicant's counsel was not allowed to conduct defense before the Court of appeal because the counsel didn't make their wish to speak before the court known

conclusion: Court upholds that Article 6 has been violated as despite being absent in court, the defendant still possesses the right to be defended. It is in the interest of a fair and just criminal process that the defendant should appear but it is more important that the accused be adequately defended

Lala v Netherlands Rule

Everyone has the right to be adequately defended by counsel, even if they waive their right to present themselves at the hearing

Schatschaschwili v Germany Summary

Article 6(3)(d) + 6(1) ECHR

- applicant committed two robberies and victims O and P were questioned by the police who later returned to Latvia and refused to appear at trial, testify on video and relied on psychological trauma as reason
- German prosecution read out the victims' statements and applicant was convicted without being able to cross-examine the key witnesses - Art 6(3)(d)
- problem was applicant nor his lawyer had been granted an opportunity, at any stage of criminal proceeding, to examine witnesses

Al-Khawaja and Tahery Test
(Schatschaschwili v Germany)

1. Was there was a good reason for the non-attendance of the witness and consequently, for the admission of the absent witness's untested statements as evidence?
--- absence of a good reason for the absence of the witness does not automatically make proceedings as a whole unfair but is an important indicator

2. Was the evidence of the absent witness the sole or decisive basis for the defendant's conviction
--- if evidence is sole or decisive, there has to be sufficient counterbalances

3. Were there sufficient counterbalancing factors/procedural safeguards that permit a fair and proper assessment of the reliability of the evidence to take place
-- the trial's approach to the untested evidence
-- availability and strength of further incriminating evidence
-- procedural measures taken to compensate for the lack of opportunity to directly cross-examine the witness at the trial
---- ex: domestic court approached untested evidence with caution, video recording of questioning witness, availability of corroborative evidence, defense may put questions indirectly, defense has opportunity to cast doubt, defense can submit questions during investigation

Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v Georgia Summary

Article 6(1) ECHR

- applicant accepted a plea bargain and later tried to argue he had no choice and did not know sufficiently what he was accepting
- Court upheld that since there was no false promise or duress and the decision was made voluntarily and consciously, that there was no violation of Art 6(1) ECHR

Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v Georgia Criteria

determines minimum safeguards of ECHR on plea bargaining

1. the bargain had to be accepted by the applicant in full awareness of the facts of the case and the legal consequences and in a genuinely voluntary manner
-- conscious and voluntary decision
-- represented by qualified lawyers to advise

2. the content of the bargain and the fairness of the manner in which it had been reached between the parties had to be subjected to sufficient judicial review
-- written, terms of agreement were sufficiently clear
-- plea bargain was examined and approved in a public hearing

Kremzow v Austria Summary

Article 6(1) + 6(3)(c) ECHR

- right to be present in an appeal hearing
- applicant was a former judge who confessed to murder but did not get to participate in the hearing of pleas of nullity or appeals
- claimed there was a violation of Art 6(1) + 6(3)(c) as applicant was unable to defend himself

Kremzow v Austria Rule

do not have right to be present if you appeal on points of law and are legally represented
- however, if dealing with facts of case or where it is valuable for the defendant to present themselves, then they should be allowed to be present (motive, state of mind, character)

Taxquet v Belgium Summary

Article 6(1) ECHR

- applicant was charged with pre-meditated murder of an honorary minister
- prosecution presented evidence based on the testimony of an anonymous informer who was never interviewed by an investigative judge, only the investigators
- jury had to answer 32 yes-or-no questions but they were generalized for all 7 defendants
- submitted that Art 6(1) ECHR had been violated as the verdict did not contain any reasoning for his conviction and complained of arbitrary justice
--- applicant says he can not deduct reasoning of jury/court based on their answers to the submitted questions and their subsequent verdict

Taxquet v Belgium Rule

- court does not require jurors to give reasons for their decisions/convictions but there must be adequate safeguards present in order to avoid arbitrariness and enable the accused to understand the conviction against him
--- Procedural safeguards may include: directions or guidance provided by the presiding judge to the jurors on legal issues arising/evidence in play, precise and unequivocal questions put to the jury, forming a framework on which the verdict is based, sufficiently compensating for the fact that the jury provided no reasons