Academic literature on the topic 'The right to a fair trial'

Fair trial in the criminal process of Ghana has been violated, constrained and compromised because procedural rights of the accused remain unenforceable. The current legal instruments within the liberal framework for protection are misguided, and the existing instruments do not guarantee the right here in ques-tion. The dissertation discusses procedural rights that interrelate with the prin-ciple of equality of arms. I advocate that the system fails to put the criminally accused on equal balance and relative equality with the state prosecution. For interest of justice, I suggest that legal aid lawyers should be assigned to repre-sent the unrepresented accused at the state expense where the accused has no means to pay. This remains dormant, basic and in superficial application in Ghana. How imperative customary law proceedings as a complement to the English system has been unfolded; and the distinguishing features between Ghana and England/Wales criminal law procedure; impact of the African Char-ter and European Convention over the domestic criminal proceedings of Ghana and England/Wales has been analysed.<br>Juicio justo en el proceso penal de Ghana ha sido violada, constreñido y comprometida debido a los derechos procesales o de procedimiento de los acusados sigue siendo inaplicable. Los instrumentos legales actuales dentro del marco liberal para la protección son equivocados, y los instrumentos existentes no garantizan la cuestión en el presente documento derecha. Se analizan los derechos de procedimiento que se interrelacionan con el principio de igualdad de armas. Abogo por que el sistema no puede poner el acusado penalmente en igualdad de equilibrio y la igualdad en relación con la fiscalía estatal. Por el interés de la justicia, sugiero que abogados de oficio deben ser asignados para representar al acusado sin representación a expensas del estado en el que el imputado no tiene que pagar. Este permanece latente, básico y en aplicación superficial en Ghana. La necesidad imperiosa de un procedimiento de derecho consuetudinario como complemento al sistema de Inglés ha sido desplegada; y las características distintivas entre Ghana e Inglaterra / Gales del procedimiento penal; impacto de la Carta Africana y el Convenio Europeo sobre el proceso penal interno de Ghana e Inglaterra / Gales ha sido analizado.

Magister Legum - LLM<br>News coverage of high profile criminal matters has increased in South Africa. Such matters are of public concern, as every citizen has a right to receive and impart information and to debate openly and frankly matters which are of public concern, including matters before the courts. The legitimacy of the courts is dependent on robust media reportage and public scrutiny of judicial matters which such reportage stimulates. However, criminal trials of high profile accused persons such as Oscar Pistorius, Shrien Dewani and J Arthur Brown, turn easily into a show with strong entertainment value, giving the media strong profitmaking reasons to cover it. In their pursuit of profit and in seeking to satisfy the curiosity of their readers, listeners or viewers, the media regularly resort to trial by media or adverse pre-trial publicity. Trial by media is nothing more than commercially motivated expression which does not warrant constitutional protection. At the receiving end of such coverage are accused persons. Public censure of crime and of accused persons which follows trial by media should not be imposed on the innocent. The right to a fair trial requires that an accused be treated fairly from the inception of the criminal process, from which point the person suspected of committing the crime in question is considered innocent. Any pre-trial process which implies that the accused is guilty, including any such process influenced by media reports surrounding criminal offences, violates the presumption of innocence. Despite the availability of remedies, the media in South Africa usually are not held to account for their actions and persist with adverse, biased and irresponsible pre-trial reporting. Courts have shown a tendency to protect the media in these cases, despite the effect of such reporting on the judicial process, the administration of justice and the fair trial rights of accused persons. The reason for this is usually the hesitation on the part of judges to recognise their susceptibility to extraneous matters. Judges should not be placed in a position where their independence and impartiality are questioned as a result of media sensationalism. Where the media create mistrust in the integrity of the judiciary, the rule of law is in peril.

This study examines the compatibility of the Law of Criminal Procedure of 2001 in Saudi Arabia with the international human rights standards, and provides recommendations for criminal procedure reforms. The recent developments in the Saudi Arabian criminal justice system make it important to examine the right to a fair trial within the legal system of Saudi Arabia. This study starts by examining the international human rights standards related to the right to a fair trial and the right to a fair trial under the Saudi Arabian legal system. The study then examines the extent to which Shariah law recognizes the international human rights standards related to the right to a fair trial. This will involve the sources of Shariah and the school of thought in the Islamic jurisprudence as well as the crimes and punishments in Islamic law. The main argument is highlighted in Chapters Four and Five of this research, the former of which study the pre-trial process in the Saudi Law of Criminal Procedure in the light of international human rights standards, and the latter has evaluated the right to a fair trial under Saudi Arabia legal system. Various cases are examined in these two chapters, and the sources of those cases vary in terms of the level; for instance, some of them were provided by the General Court in Riyadh; others were provided by the Supreme Judicial Council; and others were obtained from the Modawanat-Al-Ahkam, which is the publication of the Ministry of Justice containing a variety of cases. Cases in the international domain were brought mainly from the Working Group of Arbitrary Detention in the HRC. The study provides suggestions necessary for the Law of Criminal Procedure in relation to specific articles.

This study investigated the tension between the right to freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial in the context of the public broadcasting of criminal trials. The aim of the study was to determine whether the right of the media to broadcast criminal trials can be reconciled with the right of an accused person to a fair trial. To accomplish the above aim, the research undertook a review of the case law relating to televised criminal trials in order to determine how the courts have addressed the fair trial-free expression conflict. The study concluded that the ‘balancing exercise’ employed by the courts does not seem to have addressed this tension. Given that televised criminal trials are prone to sensationalism and the danger of fabrication of evidence, the study concludes that the broadcasting of criminal trials undermines the right to a fair trial. The study makes recommendations that are designed to ensure a proper balance between the freedom of expression as exercised by the media through the broadcasting of criminal trials on the one hand and the right of accused persons to a fair trial on the other.

This thesis concerns the violation of the right to a fair trial by the appointment of ineffective public defenders. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees the right to appointed counsel if a defendant cannot afford it. The first section of the thesis focuses on how the history of the case law which constitutionally mandates effective appointed counsel for all United States citizens who cannot afford otherwise. However, this right is not being fulfilled for millions of American citizens. The judicial system is structured so that many indigent accused criminals are convinced by their overworked and underpaid public defenders to plead guilty. This "meet and plead" style of representation expedites the trial process at the expense of indigent defendants. The second section covers the epidemic of fair trial rights violations in the United States. In order to fix this problem there are solutions that the Supreme Court, trial courts, and the legislature can address. The third and final section concludes the thesis with a discussion of possible remedies for the deficiencies of the American public defender conglomerate.

Thesis (LLD (Public Law))--University of Stellenbosch, 2010.<br>ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The guarantee of a fair trial is fundamental to the criminal process of every modern society. Like all civilised nations, Botswana’s legal order provides for the protection of accused persons through the guarantee of a fair trial. But equality of arms, a central feature of medieval trial by combat, seems to have disappeared from modern criminal procedural systems. The question arises, therefore, whether criminal justice systems sufficiently cater for the fair trial of accused persons. This thesis will argue that the present legal and institutional framework for the protection of fair trial rights in Botswana falls short of guaranteeing procedural equality and that this severely compromises fairness. The institutional framework does not support equality of arms and therefore leaves procedural rights in a basic state of application. The thesis, therefore, seeks to analyse the protection of fair trial rights in Botswana in light of the principle of equality of arms. The thesis explores the origins and theoretical foundations of the principle. It recognises that the present application of the principle occurs by implicit countenance. The absence of any constitutional recognition of the principle leaves procedural rights in a basic state of application. The thesis discusses the practical implications of an express recognition and constitutional application of the principle in the adversarial system. Equality of arms should be central in the criminal process and no party should have an unfair advantage over the other. The thesis recognises that the prosecution is in a position of advantage in that it has the support of the state. This advantage manifests itself in the form of vast resources regarding expertise, investigatory powers and legislative powers. Disparities in resources, the ability to investigate and access to witnesses create an inequality of arms between the state and the accused. This can only be balanced and countered by empowering the accused with constitutional and procedural rights that specifically protect the accused in the face of the might of the state. These procedural rights include the presumption of innocence, the right to legal representation and the right to disclosure. It is argued, however, that though accused-based rights and constitutional rules of procedure generally protect the accused and ensure that the process is fair, they mainly remain theoretical declarations if they are not applied in line with equality of arms. In other words, the meaningful enjoyment of these rights by the accused, demands the strengthening of resources and legislative and institutional governance. Fairness in criminal trials is epitomised in the balance between the overwhelming resources of the state and the constitutional protection of the accused. Otherwise, the constitutional protection afforded to the accused is compromised. The first part engages the reader with the development of accused-based rights and introduces the constitutionalisation of procedural rights in Botswana. It discusses the scope and application of the principle of equality of arms, develops its relevance to the adversarial system and justifies an application of the principle in Botswana domestic law. It makes a comparison between the adversarial and inquisitorial models while recognising the growing tendency towards convergence. It highlights the adversarial system as interest-based, and recognises the indispensability of the principle of equality of arms to such a system. While recognising that inquisitorial procedures often offend equality of arms, the role of the inquisitorial system in ensuring equality of arms is also recognised. It measures and analyses the normative value, application and recognition of equality of arms in Botswana’s legal system, arguing for express recognition and a conceptual application of the principle by the courts. It is reasoned that express recognition of the principle will result in fuller protection and better realisation of accused-based rights. Exploring the adversarial-inquisitorial dichotomy, it recognises the need for convergence, but emphasises the principle of equality of arms and the right to adversarial proceedings as the foundation for fair trials. The second part analyses the investigation process and generally bemoans the great inequalities at this stage of the criminal process. It discusses procedural and evidential rules that serve to minimise the imbalances and the role that exclusionary rules play in ensuring fair trials and reliable verdicts. The third part identifies specific trial rights which are relevant to the principle of equality of arms. Central to the discussion are the right to legal representation and the presumption of innocence which are discussed in chapters 7 and 8 respectively. These two important rights are central to the protection of the accused but unfortunately are the most compromised due to lack of resources and legislative intervention. Chapter 9 deals with other rights that are relevant to the principle as well as the ability of the accused to present his case and effectively defend himself. It emphasises the need for the courts to engage in the trial, thereby enabling the unrepresented accused. The fourth part contains final conclusions which argue that the principle of equality of arms forms the basis for the full realisation of individual procedural rights and advocates for the recognition of the principle in the Botswana legal order. It is concluded that the constitutional enshrinement of fair trial rights and their basic application by the courts, without actual measures to ensure their realisation, are insufficient. Suggestions include legislative and institutional reforms, as well as a constitutional recognition of the principle of equality of arms.<br>AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die waarborg van ‘n billike verhoor is fundamenteel tot die strafprosesregstelsel van elke beskaafde gemeenskap. Soos in ander beskaafde lande, word die beskuldige in Botswana ook beskerm deur die reg op ‘n billike verhoor. In die Middeleeue was gelykheid van wapens (“equality of arms”) die sentrale kenmerk van die tweegeveg as geskilberegtigingsmetode. Dit blyk egter dat hierdie sentrale kenmerk afwesig is in moderne strafprosesregstelsels is. Die vraag ontstaan of hierdie toedrag van sake ‘n beskuldige se reg op ‘n billike verhoor op risiko plaas. In hierdie tesis word betoog dat die posisie in Botswana van so ‘n aard is dat “ongelyke bewapening” veroorsaak dat die reg op ‘n billike verhoor belemmer word. Die plaaslike institusionele bedeling onderskraag nie die beskerming van gelykheid van wapens nie en veroorsaak derhalwe dat prosessuele regte in “a basic state of application” is, met ander woorde, op ‘n eenvoudige en meganiese toepassingvlak is. Met die norm van gelyke bewapening as vertrekpunt, ondersoek hierdie tesis die beskerming van die reg op ‘n billike verhoor in Botswana. ‘n Ondersoek word geloods na die oorsprong en toereriese basis van die beginsel van gelyke bewapening. Die afwesigheid van uitdrukklike grondwetlike erkenning van die beginsel, word vergelyk met die praktiese implikasies en uitdruklike grondwetlike erkenning en toepassing in ‘n adversatiewe stelsel. Gelykheid van wapens behoort sentraal tot die strafproses te wees en geen party behoor ‘n onbillike voordeel bo die ander te geniet nie. In hierdie tesis word erken dat die vervolging bloot vanweë die feit dat dit deur die staatsmasjienerie ondersteun word, wesenlik bevoordeel word bo die individu as aangeklaagde. Dit gaan hier om toegang tot hulpbronne soos deskundigheid, asook die rol wat misdaadondersoekmagte en ander wetgewing speel. Ongelykhede byvoorbeeld in hulpbronne, in die vermoë om misdaad te ondersoek en in die toegang tot getuies, dra alles daartoe by dat ‘n wanbalans tussen die staat en die individu ontstaan. Die verlening van prosessuele regte aan die beskuldigde is ‘n metode om die balans te probeer herstel. Voorbeelde van sulke regte is die reg om onskuldig vermoed te wees, die reg op ‘n regsverteenwoordiger en die reg op insae in verklarings. In hierdie tesis word egter betoog dat alhoewel hierdie regte en ander grondwetlike strafprosedures die beskuldigde kan beskerm en die billikheid van die proses kan bevorder, dit absoluut noodsaaklik is dat voormelde regte en prosedures in lyn met die beginsel van gelykheid van wapens geïnterpreteer en toegepas moet word. Betekenisvolle afdwinging en toepassing van ‘n beskuldigde se regte verg versterking van bronne en die institusionele bedeling. Billikheid in die strafverhoor word gekenmerk aan die graad van balans wat bereik kan word tussen die oorvloedige hulpbronne van die staat teenoor die grondwetlike beskerming van die beskuldigde. In die afwesigheid van ‘n balans, word die beskuldigde benadeel. Die eerste gedeelte van hierdie tesis behandel die ontwikkeling van die beskuldigde se regte en bevat ‘n inleiding tot die konstitusionalisering van prossuele regte in Botswana. In Deel Een word die omvang en toepassing van die beginsel van gelykheid van wapens bespreek en word die relevantheid van hierdie beginsel in die adversatiewe proses identifiseer, veral wat Botswana betref. Die adversatiewe en inkwisitoriese modelle word vergelyk en bespreek met erkenning aan die moderne neiging dat die twee modelle besig is om in een te vloei – die sogenaamde verskynsel van “convergence”. Daar word aangetoon dat gelykheid van wapens die adversatiewe model onderlê. Hierteenoor is dit so dat die inkwisitoriese model ook erkenning aan gelykheid van wapens verleen. Daar word betoog dat gelykheid van wapens ‘n normatiewe waarde het en uitdruklik in Botswana deur die howe erken moet word. Uitdruklike erkenning sal tot groter beskerming en realisering van ‘n beskuldigde se regte lei. In Deel Een word ook tot die slotsom geraak dat alhoewel daar ‘n behoefte aan “convergence” is, dit onvermydelik tog ook so is dat gelykheid van wapens en die reg op ‘n adversatiewe proses die grondslag van ‘n billike verhoor vorm. In Deel Twee word die misdaadondersoekproses ontleed en word die grootskaalse ongelykhede wat hier onstaan en bestaan, bespreek. Daar word gelet op prosesregtelike en bewysregtelike reëls wat hierdie ongelykhede kan minimaliseer. Die rol van uitsluitingsreëls ter bevordering van ‘n billike verhoor en ‘n betroubare bevinding, word ook aangespreek. Deel Drie identifiseer spesifieke verhoorregte wat in ‘n besondere direkte verband met die beginsel van gelykheid van wapens staan. Hier is veral twee regte van besondere belang: die reg op ‘n regsverteenwoordiger (hoofstuk 7) en die reg om onskukdig vermoed te wees (hoofstuk 8). Ongelukkig is dit so dat hierdie twee regte erg ondermyn word. Die reg op resverteenwoordiging word ingekort deur ‘n gebrek aan finansiële bronne terwyl die vermoede van onskuld deur wetgewing ondergrawe word. In hoofstuk 9 word ander relevante regte bespreek en word die noodsaak van ‘n aktiewe hof in die geval van ‘n onverteenwoordigde beskuldigde bepleit Deel Vier bevat finale gevolgtrekkings. Daar word betoog dat die beginsel van gelykheid van wapens die basis vorm in die volle relisering van individuele regte en, verder, dat hierdie beginsel ten volle in die regstelsel van Botswana erken behoort te word. Blote grondwetlike verskansing van die grondwetlike reg op ‘n billike verhoor en ‘n blote basiese interpretasie daarvan deur die howe, is onvoldoende wanneer daar geen maatreels is om die haalbare realisering af te dwing nie. Wetgewende en institusionele hervorming is nodig, asook ‘n grondwetlike erkenning van die beginsel van gelykheid van wapens.<br>Research funds made available by Prof. S. E. van der Merwe

This thesis explores issues concerning the conceptualisation and operationalisation of the right to a fair trial in the Kenyan criminal justice system. In particular, it looks at how and why there have been many difficulties with the implementation of this universal set of values that have been recognised since the adoption of the formal legal system in Kenya, and which have been enshrined in the Constitution since independence. It addresses a number of overarching questions. First, it identifies the factors that hindered the full realisation of the right to a fair trial. Secondly, it enquires into whether the shortcomings of the recently repealed Constitution in that regard have been fully addressed by the new Constitution adopted in 2010. Thirdly, it identifies and analyse the impact of factors outside the formal law which may have affected the practical operation of certain core elements of the right to a fair trial. Finally, in light of the above, it explores a number of approaches that might be used to address these other factors so as to help achieve at least a better, enforcement of fair trial rights in the country.

This thesis examines a number of closely connected counter-terrorist executive mechanisms in the United Kingdom (UK) and the manner in which they are administered, in order to evaluate the implications of the mechanisms for, and ultimately their compatibility with, the right to a fair trial under international human rights law (IHRL). More specifically, this study critically analyses Control Orders, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs), and Temporary Exclusion Orders (TEOs). For reasons made clear in this thesis, these mechanisms are termed ‘counter-terrorist hybrid orders’ and are collectively analysed as such. As the study identifies a number of issues pertaining to the current design and administration of these mechanisms that can adversely affect the right to a fair trial, the thesis argues that they should be substantially reformed to make them more consistent with IHRL fair trial standards. Moreover, the thesis examines how these mechanisms, as they are currently designed and administered, have been accepted in a legal system with a recognised and long-established attachment to upholding high human rights standards. Having identified, generated and analysed a substantial body of research to perform this task, the thesis argues that the acceptance of the mechanisms as they are currently administered may have occurred as a result of the establishment of a state of ‘perpetual quasi-emergency’. This denotes a particular legal phenomenon in which the UK has responded to an evolving legal problem, namely, how to deal with terror suspects who cannot be prosecuted, deported, or indefinitely detained, in a manner that, whilst being grounded in law, actually resembles the behaviour of States enduring ‘prolonged emergencies’. The thesis asserts that the state of perpetual quasi-emergency, which creates the space necessary for the acceptance of these mechanisms, was established and is preserved by a number of legal and extra-legal factors. As such, some of the research, analysis and methods used to evaluate the phenomena in this study represents an original contribution to knowledge. This study encompasses a variety of approaches in order to examine a particular type of counter-terrorist power, the implications of these mechanisms for the right to a fair trial under IHRL, and the relationships between these issues and wider society. The study requires traditional doctrinal analysis when exploring what the right to a fair trial in the context of national security entails, and in order to examine the various counter-terrorist hybrid order regimes in light of this framework. When assessing what factors may play a role in the establishment and preservation of the state of perpetual quasi-emergency, the study necessitates methods which are less doctrinal and more socio-legal in nature.