Competition law proceedings before the European Commission and the right to a fair trial: no need for reform? Research Papers in Law, 5/2008

From the Introduction. This paper will thus show that, given the rapid "criminalisation" of competition law proceedings, sanctions should in principle be imposed at first instance I. Sanctions imposed by the Commission in competition proceedings are "criminal charges" within the meaning of Article 6 ECHR by an independent and impartial tribunal fulfilling all the conditions of Article 6 ECHR (part I). Or at the very least, these sanctions should be subject to full jurisdictional review by an independent and impartial tribunal in order to comply with Article 6 ECHR and to cure the defects of the administrative procedure (part II). It is doubtful however whether such a full jurisdictional review, as it is understood by the ECtHR, is available at Community-level in antitrust cases.

The right to an impartial hearing trumps the social imperative of bringing accused to trial even 'down under'

Accused persons who are subjected to a saturation level of negative media coverage may be denied an impartial hearing, which is perhaps the most important aspect of the right to a fair hearing. Despite this, the courts have generally held that the social imperative of prosecuting accused trumps the interests of the accused. The justification for an impartial hearing stems from the repugnance of convicting the innocent. Viewed dispassionately, this imperative is not absolute, given that every legal system condones procedures which result in the conviction of some innocent people. While the importance of guarding against wrongful convictions has been overstated, the imperative to bring to trial all accused has been even more exaggerated. The legal system has displayed a capacity to deal with cases where the guilty walk free. The institutional integrity of the criminal justice system would be significantly compromised by convictions that are tarnished by pre-judgment. Confidence in the criminal justice system is more important than individual criminal accountability. The inability to receive an impartial hearing should result in a permanent stay. The only exception is where the alleged crime has the capacity to cause widespread fear or social unrest. This only applies in relation to serious acts of terrorism. This article focuses on recent legal fair trial developments in Australia, however, the analysis, reasoning and conclusion applies in relation to all jurisdictions where juries determine guilt and innocence.

A mediação judicial e as garantias fundamentais do processo civil brasileiro

O presente estudo tem por objetivo analisar a contribuição dos conflitos para a evolução do Direito e das formas de solucioná-lo. Tem por finalidade estudar o desenvolvimento da jurisdição e do processo nos conhecidos Estado Liberal, Estado Social e Estado Constitucional. O estudo oferece ênfase à incidência do constitucionalismo sobre o direito, em especial ao Direito Processual. O processo justo e suas garantias, extraídas da Constituição Federal, transformaram o processo em instrumento de concretização das normas constitucionais. A crescente litigiosidade e dependência dos cidadãos relativamente a decisão adjudicada impõem uma necessária reformulação da cultura processual. Neste ponto, o empoderamento ganha destaque como meio de fomentar a utilização de meios consensuais para solução de conflitos. Tais meios são observados como complemento e instrumentos para o afastamento da crise de efetividade experimentado pela jurisdição. A introdução, no processo, de meios consensuais de solução de conflitos, como a mediação judicial, pretende fomentar o desenvolvimento do modelo cooperativo de processo. Consequentemente, a maior participação das partes no processo de construção da solução a ser aplicada ao conflito que as envolve, contribui para a maior efetividade da prestação jurisdicional. Examina-se, cautelosamente, a introdução dos meios consensuais de solução de conflitos no processo judicial de modo que as características essenciais de cada um não sejam perdidas ou transformadas, sob pena de desvirtuar-se a mediação judicial. É preciso assegurar a compatibilidade entre ambos, bem como a aplicação das garantias fundamentais do processo.

The relevance and admissibility of prior sexual history with the defendant in sexual offence cases

Kibble, N, ?The Relevance and Admissibility of Prior Sexual History with the Defendant in Sexual Offence Cases? (2001) 32 Cambrian Law Review 27-63 (cited with approval by HL in R v A(2) [2002] AC 45) RAE2008

Absent Witnesses and the U.K. Supreme Court: Judicial Deference as Judicial Dialogue?

This article analyses the position of absent witness evidence under the UK Criminal Justice Act 2003 after significant European and domestic case law on the topic. It argues that flexibility in the hearsay regime under the 2003 Act and a permissive approach by appellate courts has increased the potential for fair trial violations in recent years. Moreover, the UK Supreme Court decision in R v Horncastle preserves domestic courts’ authority to determine the meaning of European rights and selectively defer to Parliament. This area of the law demonstrates the scope that the domestic system retains for divergence from European standards.

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights has begun to refer to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in order to support its reasoning for interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights in a particular way. But the EU Charter does not yet have any special status in that regard, being treated by the Court as on a par with numerous other documents of international law. The Court’s use of the Charter began in connection with arts 8 and 12 of the Convention (the right to a family life and the right to marry) but in subsequent years it has been extended to many other Articles of the Convention. It is in relation to art.6 (the right to a fair trial) that the Charter’s influence has been most noticeable so far, the Court having changed its position on two important aspects of Article 6 partly because of the wording of the EU Charter. But the influence on art.3 (in relation to the rights of asylum seekers), art.7 (in relation to retroactive penal laws), art.9 (in relation to the right to conscientious objection) and art.11 (in relation to rights of trades unions) has also been significant. The potential for the Charter to have greater influence on the Court’s jurisprudence in years to come remains considerable.

Sporting Justice: An Arbitrator's Perspective

Drawing on my experience of a number of sports dispute resolution tribunals in the UK and Ireland (such as Sports Resolutions UK; Just Sport Ireland; the Football Association of Ireland’s Disciplinary Panel and the Gaelic Athletic Association’s Dispute Resolution Authority) I intend to use this paper to review the legal arguments typically made in sports-related arbitrations. These points of interest can be summarised as a series of three questions: the fairness question; the liability question; the penalty question.

In answer to the fairness question, the aim is to give a brief outline on best practice in establishing a "fair" sports disciplinary tribunal. The answer, I believe, is always twofold in nature: first, and to paraphrase Lord Steyn in R v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Daly [2001] UKHL 26 at [28] "in law, context is everything" – translated into the present matter, this means that in sports disciplinary cases, the more serious the charges against the individual (in terms of reputational damage, economic impact and/or length of sanction); the more tightly wrapped the procedural safeguards surrounding any subsequent disciplinary hearing must be. A fair disciplinary system will be discussed in the context of the principles laid down in Article 8 of the World Anti-Doping Code which, in effect, acts as sport’s Article 6 of the ECHR on a right to a fair trial.

Following on from the above, in the 60 or so sports arbitrations that I have heard, there are two further points of interest. First, the claim before the arbitral panel will often be framed in an argument that, for various reasons of substantive and procedural irregularity, the sanction imposed on the appellant should be quashed ("the liability"). Second, and in alternative, that the sanction imposed was wholly disproportionate ("the penalty").

The liability issue usually breaks down into two further questions. First, what is the nature of the legal duty upon a sports body in exercising its disciplinary remit? Second, to what extent does a de novo hearing on appeal cure any apparent defects in a hearing of first instance? The first issue often results in an arbitral panel debating the contra preferentum approach to the interpretation of a contested rule i.e., the sports body’s rules in question are so ambiguous that they should be interpreted in a manner to the detriment of the rule maker and in favour of the appellant. On the second matter, it now appears to be a general principle of sports law, administrative law and even human rights law that even if a violation of the principles of natural justice takes place at the first instance stage of a disciplinary process, they may be cured on de novo appeal. Authority for this approach can be found at the Court of Arbitration for Sport and in particular in CAS 2009/A/1920 FK Pobeda, Aleksandar Zabrcanec, Nikolce Zdraveski v UEFA at para 87.

The question on proportionality asks what, aside from precedent found within the decisions of the sports body in question, are the general legal principles against which a sanction by a sports disciplinary body can be benchmarked in order to ascertain whether it is disproportionate in length or even irrational in nature?

On the matter of (dis)proportionality of sanction, the debate is usually guided by the authority in Bradley v the Jockey Club [2004] EWHC 2164 (QB) and affirmed at [2005] EWCA Civ 1056. The Bradley principles on proportionality of sports-specific sanctions, recently cited with approval at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, will be examined in this presentation.

Finally, an interesting application of many of the above principles (and others such as the appropriate standard of proof in sports disciplinary procedures) can be made to recent match-fixing or corruption related hearings held by the British Horse Racing Authority, the integrity units of snooker and tennis, and at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Ações encobertas

The global and increasingly technological society requires the States to adopt security measures that can maintain the balance between the freedom, on the one hand, and the security and the respect for fundamental rights of a democratic state, on the other. A State can only achieve this aim if it has an effective judicial system and in particular a criminal procedure adequate to the new criminogenic realities. In this context, the national legislator has adopted, following other international legal systems, special means of obtaining proof more stringent of rights. Within those special means are included the covert actions, that, being a means to use sparingly, is a key element to fight against violent and highly organized crime. Therefore, the undercover agent, voluntary by nature, develops a set of activities that enables the investigation to use other means of taking evidence and/or probationary diligences itself, with the purpose of providing sufficient proof to the case file. In this milieu, given the high risks involved during the investigation, as well as after its completion, the undercover agent can act upon fictitious identity. This measure can be maintained during the evidentiary phase of the trial. Similarly, given the latent threat that the undercover agent suffers by its inclusion in criminal organizations, as well as the need for his inclusion in future covert actions it is crucial that his participation as a witness in the trial is properly shielded. Thus, when the undercover agent provides, exceptionally, statements in the trial, he shall do so always through videoconference with voice and image distortion. This measure can guarantee the anonymity of the undercover agent and concomitantly, that the adversarial principle and the right of the accused to a fair trial is not prejudiced since, in those circumstances, the diligence will be supervised in its entirety (in the audience and with the undercover agent) by a judge.

L'admission des confessions et le risque d'erreur judiciaire : toute vérité est-elle bonne à dire ?

"Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de Maîtrise en droit (LL.M.)"