Article 6 in the Supreme Court: Conflicting Views on the Right of Confrontation
| dc.contributor.author | Bird, James | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-03-29T10:42:37Z | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-04-11T11:30:13Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-03-29T10:42:37Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-04-11T11:30:13Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2014 | |
| dc.identifier.citation |
Bird, J. (2014) 'Article 6 in the Supreme Court: Conflicting Views on the Right of Confrontation', Plymouth Law and Criminal Justice Review, 6, pp. 107-126. Available at: https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/handle/10026.1/8994 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.issn | 2054-149X | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/8994 | |
| dc.description.abstract |
This article explores the disparate jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the appellate courts of England and Wales in relation to Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights, the right to a fair trial. It examines the differing views of the UK and Strasbourg courts in relation to the right of confrontation and argues that in the absence of provision for reform, the statutory safeguards employed by the UK criminal justice system strike an appropriate balance between the rights of defendants and the rights of victims and witnesses in criminal trials. | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | University of Plymouth | |
| dc.rights | Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) | * |
| dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | * |
| dc.subject | Article 6 ECHR right of confrontation | en_US |
| dc.subject | absent and anonymous witnesses | en_US |
| dc.title | Article 6 in the Supreme Court: Conflicting Views on the Right of Confrontation | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | |
| plymouth.volume | 6 | |
| plymouth.journal | The Plymouth Law & Criminal Justice Review |
Files in this item
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
