Grand Chamber judgment Allen v. the UK - refusal of compensation did not breach presumption of innocence

CtEDO 2013-11-12 0,88

nt’s claim should have been accepted on the basis, inter alia, that his prosecution should not have been brought. 13. By letter dated 20 August 2013 the Minister of State replied in the following terms: “... I cannot comment on why the deci

CtEDO 2013-09-03 0,87

the nature of the task that the Secretary of State was required to carry out, and in the context of the judgment quashing the applicant’s conviction, the language employed in the compensation decision was compatible with the presumption of

CtEDO 2011-05-10 0,87

detention on remand where proceedings taken against him are discontinued (see, for example, [ Sekanina v. Austria, 25 August 1993, § 25, Series A no. 266-A ] ). Further, the Convention does not guarantee a defendant who has been acquitted t

CtEDO 2013-11-12 0,87

Phillips on the basis that it was consistent with his view. 30. As regards Article 6 § 2, Lord Clarke considered that the court hearing and determining a claim for compensation under section 133(1) must not say or do anything inconsistent w

CtEDO 2016-03-22 0,87

quitted. The statement that the applicant’s acquittal was erroneous, in circumstances where that acquittal was final, was of itself tantamount to voicing suspicion of guilt. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the presumption of innocence, guarante