Sentences with phrase «fair public trial»

The judiciary is controlled by the state and there is no right to a fair public trial.

There were also civilian detentions in military facilities, often based on flimsy evidence; denial of fair public trial; executive influence on the judiciary; infringement on citizens» privacy rights; restrictions on freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and movement

Not exact matches

Though public opinion seems to be split on whether or not her actually murdered Hae Min Lee, most listeners agree that he did not receive a fair trial.

What he deserves is a fair trial, — followed by a public drowning.

I have proposed a Prevention of Terrorism Bill, which would unwind the application of the Act and give us a proper terrorism law, ruling out the application of the HRA 1998 while insisting on habeas corpus, due process and fair trial on one hand, and guiding judicial interpretation of provisions during a public emergency on the other.

Former New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver pleaded not guilty today to federal corruption charges as his lawyer accused U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of turning the public against him and undermining his right to a fair trial.

«The nearly simultaneous convictions of Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos, whose corruption crimes were laid bare during fair and public trials, have no precedent.

«The nearly simultaneous convictions of Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos, whose corruption crimes were laid bare during fair and public trials, have no precedent,» Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said after the sentencing.

«With an eye toward a significant reduction in the jail population, including increased use of community - based diversion programs, and policing, bail and speedy trial reform, the #CLOSErikers Campaign is advocating for a much smaller, less expensive, fairer and more humane public safety system in NYC,» Martin said.

Reading Manjoo's narrative, which nicely pulls together the different pieces of evidence that saw their first public airing during the just - concluded Apple - Samsung trial, I'm struck again by a path that was filled with more than its fair share of trial and error.

«The evidence at trial overwhelmingly showed that these statutes promote and support important public interests like attracting and retaining qualified teachers for California public schools while providing objective, fair, and transparent procedures in the event of economic layoffs,» the unions stated in announcing their appeal.

Given that Hyatt has since discontinued the Hyatt Diamond Trial program for the public at large, it might be fair to assume I was wrong and enough people were in fact getting the better of Hyatt after all.

But Bailey argued that prejudicial publicity in the case had trampled the delicate boundaries between a right to public information and Sheppard's right to a fair trial.

A libel trial involves findings of defamation as well as consideration of the defenses potentially applicable to each of the publications, including justification, fair comment, and whether the publications are protected by the defence communication on a matter of public interest.

It is a fundamental aspect of the right to a fair trial that the parties are entitled to disclosure of all relevant evidence, save insofar as public interest immunity applies (Dowsett v United Kingdom (App no 39482 / 98)[2003] ECHR 39482 / 98).

Yet, this is not a case about free speech writ large, nor about the guaranty of a fair trial, nor about any cognizable constitutional right of public access to the courts.

HRA 1998, s 12 (3) may prove to be the death knell for the interim injunction as a guard dog of an individual's right to privacy pending trial, while the courts continue to uphold the freedom of an ever more powerful and invasive press it is only a matter of time before an individual's private thoughts and activities are presumed to be fair game for public consumption, whether that individual is the man on the Clapham omnibus or the Prince of Wales.

58 It is apparent, furthermore, from the case - law of the European Court of Human Rights that the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950, which corresponds to the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, does not preclude «summons by public notice», provided that the rights of those concerned are properly protected (see Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Nunes Dias v Portugal [2003], Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2003 - VI).

For example in STC 232/2015, the SCC found that a court had breached the fundamental right to a fair trial of an interim public employee by ostensibly refusing to apply clear and consistent CJEU case law regarding the prohibition of discrimination between interim and career public employees.

The Aarhus Convention through that provision only permitted refusal to access to documents if it would adversely affect «the course of justice, the ability of a person to receive a fair trial or the ability of a public authority to conduct an enquiry of a criminal or disciplinary nature».

The public interest in maintaining confidentiality must be balanced against the public interest in a fair trial, according to principles which have developed since the landmark case of Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910 required the court to strike that balance.»

(b) the salutary effects of the publication ban outweigh the deleterious effects on the rights and interests of the parties and the public, including the effects on the right to free expression, the right of the accused to a fair and public trial, and the efficacy of the administration of justice.

Firstly, the Supreme Court in Mentuck held that once information has entered the public domain of the courtroom, access to disseminate this information should be denied only where its publication would present a real and substantial risk to the proper administration of justice (e.g. a risk to the accused's section 11 (d) Charter right to a fair trial), and where the salutary effects of denying access outweigh the deleterious effects.

What is at stake requires that the court must balance what justice demands: that the accused receive a fair trial, that witnesses are not deterred from testifying, and that the judge, jury and lawyers are not distracted during the proceedings, against what the public interest in justice and our democracy requires....

«The matters to which the court must have regard include --(a) the financial value of the claim and the amount in dispute, if different; (b) whether it would be more convenient or fair for hearings (including the trial) to be held in some other court; (c) the availability of a judge specialising in the type of claim in question; (d) whether the facts, legal issues, remedies or procedures involved are simple or complex; (e) the importance of the outcome of the claim to the public in general».

The Court suggested that the non-publication order in the present case be scaled back (by agreement of the parties) as it unnecessarily covered information that would not have a negative impact on fair trial rights, i.e. background information that is readily available to and known to the public.

My fair comment defence relied on true facts that were in evidence at trial: the student report, the plaintiff's evaluation report of the student report, and access to information documents that had been made public by the student association.

... A fair trial is one that satisfies the public interest in getting at the truth, while preserving basic procedural fairness...»

The reasoning is that jurors» public comments and discussions may interfere with a fair trial.

The authors asserted, at p. 1, that the events of the Wagar trial: ``... undermine public confidence in the fair administration of justice, both in general and in relation to Justice Camp's current capacity for independence, integrity and impartiality, and his ability to respect the equality and dignity of all persons appearing before him.»

To be sure, forensic science (even the ubiquity of DNA) is not foolproof while the political and public dimensions of a terrorism trial can challenge a democracy's ability to ensure a fair trial.

The procedurally irregular and substantively deficient nature of their adjudication gave more than ample cause for reasonable observers to question the three judges» own impartiality and propriety, and undermined the decisional independence that trial judges must enjoy to render fair and impartial decisions that are seen as legitimate across the full spectrum of the public's diverse litigants and communities.

The constitutional question presented by this case is whether members of the public have a First Amendment right to insist upon access to the transcript of a preliminary hearing during the period before the public trial, even though the accused, the prosecutor, and the trial judge have all agreed to the sealing of the transcript in order to assure a fair trial.

It is difficult to disagree in the abstract with that court's analysis balancing the defendant's right to a fair trial against the public right of access.

That case concerned balancing the constitutional right of the public to know what happens in courts against the right of an accused to a fair trial but the judgment is highly significant to court reporting generally.

(A) A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court, or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.

Instead, it confirmed the trial judge's determinations that «the transcript is indicative of only the prosecutorial side of the case,» id., at E-14; that the public's right of access was overborne by the «reasonable likelihood of substantial prejudice» to «the defendant's right to a fair trial,» id., at E-9; and that» [alternatives] to sealing the transcript would not suffice in this [17] case,» id., at E-14.

(iii) while a proceeding is pending or impending in any court, make any public comment that might reasonably be expected to affect its outcome or impair its fairness or make any nonpublic comment that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.

(b) the salutary effects of the order, including the effects on the right of civil litigants to a fair trial, outweigh its deleterious effects, including the effects on the right to free expression which includes the public interest in open and accessible court proceedings (the «proportionality» branch).

the salutary effects of the publication ban outweigh the deleterious effects on the rights and interests of the parties and the public, including the effects on the right to free expression, the right of the accused to a fair and public trial, and the efficacy of the administration of justice.