http://www.shrlg.org.uk/2009/05/03/ohagan-v-rea/ Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:08:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= http://www.shrlg.org.uk/2009/05/03/ohagan-v-rea/comment-page-1/#comment-13 John McKendrick Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:54:45 +0000 http://www.shrlg.org.uk/?p=1002#comment-13 This decision should be contrasted with the Divisional Court's view in Barnfather v London Borough of Islington [2003] EWHC 418 (Admin) DC, where they held Article 6 (2) was not engaged. The question, the court said, was whether Art.6(2) provided a criterion against which the substance of a domestic offence could be scrutinised or whether it was confined to procedural and evidential matters; in the ECHR decision of Salabiaku v France 13 EHRR 379 it was of the latter kind. Neither the decision in Salabiaku nor anything else relied upon by the appellant provided a basis for holding that s.444(1) of the 1996 Act was incompatible with Art.6(2) of the Convention. This decision should be contrasted with the Divisional Court’s view in Barnfather v London Borough of Islington [2003] EWHC 418 (Admin) DC, where they held Article 6 (2) was not engaged. The question, the court said, was whether Art.6(2) provided a criterion against which the substance of a domestic offence could be scrutinised or whether it was confined to procedural and evidential matters; in the ECHR decision of Salabiaku v France 13 EHRR 379 it was of the latter kind. Neither the decision in Salabiaku nor anything else relied upon by the appellant provided a basis for holding that s.444(1) of the 1996 Act was incompatible with Art.6(2) of the Convention.

]]>