European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
SCHEDULE 1: ARTICLE 6 - RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.



ISSUE: Does a "frivolous" or "vexatious" litigant have a right to a fair trial? Should the terms be obsolete in light of the ECHR being incorporated in the UK via the HRA 1998?

Should concepts "abuse of process" and "res judicata" also be obsolete in light of the HRA 1998, save that where an abuse of process does actually occur it be deemed either "contempt of court" or an inchoate offence of "attempt to, or conspiracy to, pervert the course of justice" and if successful, "perversion of the course of justice" thus subverting the need for the ECHR in the first instance? The latter conduct would be "deliberate" action by one of the parties.

Does the existence of the HRA 1998 "imply" that judges are not trained properly or are actually involved in corruption? Or that there exists a "legal mafia" within the judiciary and Department of Constitutional Affairs? (See Miscarriage of Justice v Corruption post below)

Do you consider that the HRA 1998 became necessary post-Woolf Reforms and is there any issue that we did or did not need this Act pre-Woolf. Access to Justice Table re Woolf (worth downloading)

Discuss.

Human Rights Act 1998