Why is It Taking So Long?

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights imposes on states an obligation to  provide a fair and public hearing, within a reasonable time before an independent and impartial tribunal for civil and criminal cases.

It is an absolute right and cannot be limited by any state, even if it thinks that it has legitimate grounds to do it. Other rights which help to achieve this objective include the right to access legal advice and to remain silent as stated by the Privy Council in brown v Stott {2001]2 All ER 97 and it has been confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights in O’Halloran v UK (2008) 46EHRR 21.

So, as stated above hearings must be public which means open to the press and public. However, sometimes hearings are private because it is in the best interests of morals, national security, public order, to protect juveniles or the private life of the parties or because of other special circumstances in the interests of justice. The last one can occur when a defendant faces two separate trials and so reporting the first one would prejudice the second. However, the press could still attend thou they could not make any publications before the second trial. Besides, judgements should always be given in public.

However, in B and P v United Kingdom (2002) 34 EHRR 19 it has been stated that in certain situations it is justifiable to give a judgement in private, especially when children are involved. What’s more, judgements can be delivered in writing rather than read in an open court as stated in Sutters v Switzerland [1984] Series A, No.74.

However, in Fayed v United Kingdom (1994) 18 EHRR 393 a fact-finding exercise did not require complying with Article 6 despite the fact that legal proceedings by other authorities may follow.

So, everyone has a right to a public hearing to ensure that it is just. It is because the public and press can get some kind of control over it to ensure that law is observed.

Sources: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/WeNDacwO5NA/maxresdefault.jpg