Summary Criminal law part B case law summaries in IRAC format
36 views 2 purchases
Course
Criminal law (RGPSR50110)
Institution
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (RuG)
Criminal law part B case law summaries in IRAC (issue, rules, analysis, conclusion) format from week 1 to week 7 with additional helpful notes/pointers for the exam :)
Rechtsgeleerdheid: Internationaal en Europees recht
Criminal law (RGPSR50110)
All documents for this subject (3)
Seller
Follow
vasundharasingh
Reviews received
Content preview
WEEK 1: Right to a fair trial & within reasonable time
Ozturk v Germany:
ISSUE: Was article 6(3) applicable in regards to a ‘criminal charge’?
RULES:
Using the Engel v Netherlands Criteria:
1. Classification of the offence under national law.
2. The Nature of the offence
a. Is it applicable to everyone in the country (Y→ indicative of a criminal
charge).
b. Punishment (what goal does the penalty serve? Retributive in effect?)
3. The Nature & degree of the severity of the penalty (as soon as a deprivation of
liberty is concerned e.g. prison sentence, high fine, it is assumed to be a criminal
charge).
*Elaboration: A criminal charge has autonomous interpretation in the ECHR. It is defined
as “An official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an
allegation that he has committed a criminal offence” → however, other measures that
carry an implication of a criminal charge e.g. interrogation & arrests are also seen as
forms of ‘notifying’.
ANALYSIS:
1. Although the offence was classified as a regulatory offence under national law -
it was criminal in nature.
2. Has punitive character.
a. Is applied to everyone in the country → is not directed towards a given
group.
b. The sanction seeks to punish as well as deter.
CONCLUSION: There was a violation of art 6(3) ECHR.
Venditelli v Italy
ISSUE: Was there a violation of art 6(1)? Specifically → "In the determination of ... any
criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time
by [a] ... tribunal ..."
RULES:
Firstly, the ‘period to be taken into consideration’ must be established.
- Start date: begins on the day the person is ‘charged’.
- End date: When the judgement becomes final (within the country).
Criteria for reasonable time:
1. Complexity of the case
2. Conduct of the applicant
3. Conduct of the state
4. What is at stake for the applicant?
*Elaboration: Only conduct by the state constitutes reasonable time being exceeded. If it
is caused by the applicant then the right is not violated.
ANALYSIS:
- This case was not particularly complex.
, -
Delays were partly caused by the applicant → he caused a delay of 6 months and
the whole proceedings lasted 14 months - hence his conduct was substantial.
CONCLUSION: There was no violation of art 6(1).
WEEK 2: Search & Seizures, Arrests & Pre-trial detention
Brogan v UK
ISSUE:
1. Was the applicant’s right to art 5(1)(c) violated? Specifically → “(c) the lawful
arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the
competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an
offence ...;”
2. Was the applicant’s right to art 5(3) violated? Specifically → "Everyone arrested
or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article
(art. 5-1-c) shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised
by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable
time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to
appear for trial."
RULES:
1. Reasonable suspicion ‘presupposes the existence of facts or information which
would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have
committed the offence’ (art 5).
2.
a. First, establish the time spent in detention (before being brought to the
judge for the first time).
b. ‘Promptly’ → max of 4 days normally, and 5 days in exceptional cases
(e.g. concerning terrorism).
CONCLUSION: There was no violation of art 5(1)(c) but there was a violation of art
5(3).
Letellier v France:
ISSUE:
1. Was the applicant’s right to art 5(3) violated? Specifically → "Everyone arrested
or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article
(art. 5-1-c), ... shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release
pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial."
2. Was the applicant’s right to art 5(4) violated? Specifically → “"Everyone who is
deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings
by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and
his release ordered if the detention is not lawful."
RULES:
Issue 1:
1) Establish the time spent in pre-trial detention
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller vasundharasingh. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R87,48. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
