|
Article 6
test for a decision on whether a person should not be returned because of the risk that there would not be a fair trial. Soering v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439 at [113] ('Soering'):
"The right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings, as embodied in Article 6, holds a prominent place in a democratic society. The court does not exclude that an issue might exceptionally be raised under Article 6 by an extradition decision in circumstances where the fugitive has suffered or risks suffering a flagrant denial of a fair trial in the requesting country."
Mamatkulov v Turkey (2005) 41 EHRR 25 at [494], as being the nearest that the Strasburg court had come to laying down a test:
"The court considers that, like the risk of treatment proscribed by Article 2 and/or Article 3, the risk of a flagrant denial of justice in the country of destination must primarily be assessed by reference to the facts which the contracting state knew or should have known when it extradited the persons concerned."
R(Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] 2 AC 323 at [24], where Lord Bingham of Cornhill said:
"while the Strasbourg jurisprudence does not preclude reliance on articles other than Article 3 as a ground for resisting extradition or expulsion, it makes it quite clear that successful reliance demands presentation of a very strong case… Where reliance is placed on Article 6, it must be shown that a person has suffered or risks suffering a flagrant denial of a fair trial in the receiving state."
At [44], Lord Steyn said:
"It can be regarded as settled law that where there is a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice in the country to which an individual is to be deported, Article 6 may be engaged."
|
