Update on Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights Affecting Criminal Law/Criminal Procedure
| Author | Adnan Liaqat,Richard Lang |
| Published date | 01 June 2012 |
| Date | 01 June 2012 |
| DOI | 10.1177/203228441200300209 |
| Subject Matter | Update |
202 Intersentia
UPDATE ON DECISIONS OF THE EUROPEAN
COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AFFECTING
CRIMINAL LAW/CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
R L and A L*
For ease of reading, certain cases have been omitted from this summary. ey are cases
solely concerning the length of proceedings, cases solely concerning the presence of a
militar y judge on the bench, cases solely concerni ng the censorship of letters, and other
“repetitive” or “recur rent” cases which disclos e no new point of law.
G. v. France
Date of judgement: 23February 2 012
e applicant, Mr G., is a French national who was born in 1974. He su ers from a
chronic schizophrenic-ty pe psychiatric disorder w ith hallucinations, delusions and
aggressive and addict ive behaviour. Between 1996 and 2004 he was a lternately in prison
and in a psychiatric hospital. On 21 May 2005 he was i mprisoned a er he caused
damage in the psychiat ric hospital.Relying on Article6 §1 and Article3 of Convention,
Mr G alleged that h is placement under judicial investigation and appea rance before the
Assize Court i n spite of his psychiatric disorder had been incompatible w ith the
requirements of a fair tri al and he had not received appropriate treatment between 2005
and 2009 althoug h his mental disorder had called for proper treatment in a psych iatric
hosp ital .Al so he a rgu ed th at hi s ret urn t o pri son ea ch t ime h is con diti on imp roved had
amounted to inhuman a nd degrading treatment in breach of A rticle3 of the Convention.
e European Cour t of Human Rights bega n by reviewing Mr G’s appeara nces
before the Var Assize Court a nd the Bouches-du-Rhône Assize Court. It noted that t he
Presidents of both courts had quest ioned the accuse d and he had replied. According to
the record of the hearings of 21 and 22September 20 09, the President had decided that it
was unnecessa ry to order a further medic al examination since the appl icant “[had been]
able to reply and to speak of his own accord, demons trating that he was listening to a nd
could understand the d iscussions”. e European Court thus ca me to the conclusion
that Mr G’s capacity to defend himself had not been impaired and consequently there
1 Richard La ng BA (Hons), LL.M, Ph.D is a Senior Lect urer at the School of Law, e University of
Bedfordshire , and is Of Counsel to Kemmler Rapp Bö hlke & Crosby, Brussels. Adnan Li aqat is a
LL.B Cand idate at the University of Bedford shire.
To continue reading
Request your trial