10. The Law and Practice Relating to Court Bail

Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford

This chapter explains the practice and procedure of court bail. It examines the grounds upon which bail might be refused; the factors a court can have regard to when deciding whether bail should be granted; the procedure at a contested bail application; appeals against bail decisions; and bail and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (ECHR 1950).

Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford

This chapter explains the practice and procedure of court bail. It examines the grounds upon which bail might be refused; the factors a court can have regard to when deciding whether bail should be granted; the procedure at a contested bail application; appeals against bail decisions; and bail and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (ECHR 1950).


Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford

This chapter explains the practice and procedure of court bail. It examines the grounds upon which bail might be refused; the factors a court can have regard to when deciding whether bail should be granted; the procedure at a contested bail application; appeals against bail decisions; and bail and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (ECHR 1950).


2021 ◽  
Vol 192 ◽  
pp. 557-577

Human rights — Liberty and security of person — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 5 — Stateless persons — Deprivation of liberty of a person against whom action being taken with a view to deportation or extradition — Judicial protection — Article 31.7 and Article 31.9 of Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation — Whether in compliance with Article 5 of Convention — Whether in compliance with Article 22 of Constitution of the Russian FederationNationality — Stateless persons — Conviction of offence — Liability to deportation — Absence of State willing to accept deportee — Continued detention — Human rights — The law of the Russian Federation


Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford

This chapter explains the practice and procedure of court bail. It examines the grounds upon which bail might be refused; the factors a court can have regard to when deciding whether bail should be granted; the procedure at a contested bail application; appeals against bail decisions; and bail and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (ECHR 1950).


2021 ◽  
pp. 187-208
Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford

This chapter explains the practice and procedure of court bail. It examines the grounds upon which bail might be refused; the factors a court can have regard to when deciding whether bail should be granted; the procedure at a contested bail application; appeals against bail decisions; and bail and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (ECHR 1950).


Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford

This chapter explains the practice and procedure of court bail. It examines the grounds upon which bail might be refused; the factors a court can have regard to when deciding whether bail should be granted; the procedure at a contested bail application; appeals against bail decisions; and bail and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (ECHR 1950).


2003 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Voyiakis

This comment discusses three recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of McElhinney v Ireland, Al-Adsani v UK, and Fogarty v UK. All three applications concerned the dismissal by the courts of the respondent States of claims against a third State on the ground of that State's immunity from suit. They thus raised important questions about the relation the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention)—especially the right to a fair trial and access to court enshrined in Arcticle 6(1)—and the law of State immunity.


2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 273-286
Author(s):  
Matthew Seet

There is a growing movement (globally and in Europe) addressing statelessness, and the July 2014 decision of Kim v Russia illustrates the role of the Strasbourg Court as a guardian of one of the most important fundamental rights of the ‘legally invisible’ in Europe. The court held that Russia’s two-year detention of a stateless person with a view to expulsion violated his right to liberty and security under Article 5(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights. This comment argues that Kim v Russia represents an important step forward by the Strasbourg Court in safeguarding the stateless person’s right to liberty and security of person under echr doctrine, by highlighting and addressing the special vulnerability of stateless persons to prolonged, indefinite and cyclical detention in immigration control proceedings, although the court should have gone further and indicated general measures explicitly recommending for Russia to introduce statelessness determination procedures.


Author(s):  
Egidijus Küris

Western legal tradition gave the birth to the concept of the rule of law. Legal theory and constitutional justice significantly contributed to the crystallisation of its standards and to moving into the direction of the common concept of the rule of law. The European Court of Human Rights uses this concept as an interpretative tool, the extension of which is the quality of the law doctrine, which encompasses concrete requirements for the law under examination in this Court, such as prospectivity of law, its foreseeability, clarity etc. The author of the article, former judge of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court and currently the judge of the European Court of Human Rights, examines how the latter court has gradually intensified (not always consistently) its reliance on the rule of law as a general principle, inherent in all the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, to the extent that in some of its judgments it concentrates not anymore on the factual situation of an individual applicant, but, first and foremost, on the examination of the quality of the law. The trend is that, having found the quality of the applicable law to be insufficient, the Court considers that the mere existence of contested legislation amounts to an unjustifiable interference into a respective right and finds a violation of respective provisions of the Convention. This is an indication of the Court’s progressing self-approximation to constitutional courts, which are called to exercise abstract norm-control.La tradición occidental alumbró la noción del Estado de Derecho. La teoría del Derecho y la Justicia Constitucional han contribuido decisivamente a la cristalización de sus estándares, ayudando a conformar un acervo común en torno al mismo. El Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos emplea la noción de Estado de Derecho como una herramienta interpretativa, fundamentalmente centrada en la doctrina de la calidad de la ley, que implica requisitos concretos que exige el Tribunal tales como la claridad, la previsibilidad, y la certeza en la redacción y aplicación de la norma. El autor, en la actualidad Juez del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y anterior Magistrado del Tribunal Constitucional de Lituania, examina cómo el primero ha intensificado gradualmente (no siempre de forma igual de consistente) su confianza en el Estado de Derecho como principio general, inherente a todos los preceptos que forman el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos, hasta el punto de que en algunas de sus resoluciones se concentra no tanto en la situación de hecho del demandante individual sino, sobre todo y ante todo, en el examen de esa calidad de la ley. La tendencia del Tribunal es a considerar que, si observa que la ley no goza de calidad suficiente, la mera existencia de la legislación discutida supone una interferencia injustificable dentro del derecho en cuestión y declara la violación del precepto correspondiente del Convenio. Esto implica el acercamiento progresivo del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos a los Tribunales Constitucionales, quienes tienen encargado el control en abstracto de la norma legal.


2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sascha-Dominik Bachmann ◽  
Peter Galvin

Contemporary British anti-terror legislation has been characterised by an extensive use of extra-ordinary detention measures: the Terrorism Act 2000 and Terrorism Act 2006 contain provisions, which enable the extended pre-charge detention of terror suspects beyond the limits of normal criminal procedure. The now repealed provisions of Part IV of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 allowed the indefinite detention of foreign national terror suspects on a quasi-judicial basis. Its successor, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, enables the use of Control Orders, effectively a form of house arrest characterised by restrictions on an individual’s liberty. In short, these measures have in common the extensive limitation of the individual’s right to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Whilst the judiciary have curtailed the most abhorrent manifestations of such extraordinary measures, as detailed, the legal framework as it exists today, still raises ECHR compliancy issues. Legal reformation should be sought to end such an impasse by amending at the very least the statutory framework already in place. Ideally anti-terror detention provisions should be brought back within the sphere of criminal law and in compliance with the ECHR.La législation contemporaine anti-terroriste britannique a été caractérisée par l’utilisation considérable de mesures extraordinaires de détention : la Terrorism Act 2000 et la Terrorism Act 2006 contiennent des dispositions qui permettent la détention prolongée préalable à l’accusation de personnes soupçonnées de terrorisme au-delà des limites de la procédure criminelle normale. Les dispositions, maintenant abrogées, de la Partie IV de la Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 permettaient la détention indéfinie de ressortissants étrangers soupçonnés de terrorisme sur une base quasi-judiciaire. Son successeur, la Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, permet l’utilisation d’Ordonnances de contrôle, qui sont effectivement une forme de détention à domicile caractérisée par des restrictions sur la liberté d’un individu. En bref, ces mesures ont en commun de limiter considérablement le droit de l’individu à la liberté énoncé à l’Article 5 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. Bien que l’appareil judiciaire ait restreint les manifestations les plus odieuses de mesures extraordinaires du genre, tel que détaillé, le contexte judiciaire tel qu’il existe aujourd’hui soulève encore des questions de conformité à la CEDH. Il faudrait préconiser des réformes juridiques pour mettre fin à une telle impasse, en modifiant tout au moins le cadre statutaire déjà en place. Idéalement, les dispositions de détention anti-terroristes devraient être ramenées dans la sphère du droit criminel et en conformité à la CEDH. 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document