Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BETSON AND COCKRAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 12710/04

  The Court recalls the general principles set out in Edwards v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, § 34):.
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 12710/04

  The Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see, inter alia, the Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, para. 33).".
• EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 35718/97

  CONDRON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 12710/04

  The Court has observed in the past that, in the absence of an inquiry into the issue of fairness, a finding that a conviction was "safe" cannot be assimilated to a conclusion that the rights of the defence under Article 6 of the Convention were secured (see Condron v. the United Kingdom, no. 35718/97, § 65, ECHR 2000-V).

• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16

  OKROPIRIDZE v. GEORGIA

  It is also appropriate to reiterate that, when criticism is made by an applicant of the manner in which a trial judge handled a jury trial, the Court will attach particular weight to the assessment of the national appellate court, which, because of its knowledge and experience of the conduct of jury trials, is especially well placed to determine whether a trial judge's handling of a trial resulted in unfairness (see C.G. v. the United Kingdom, no. 43373/98, § 36, 19 December 2001, and Betson and Cockram v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 12710/04, 8 November 2005).