Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2002] All ER (D) 445 (Nov)
Court: Divisional Court
Judge:

Latham LJ and Field J

Representation Marc Willers (instructed by Parker Arrenberg Dawson & Cobb) for U.
  Geoff Knowles (instructed by Gordon Brown Associates) for R.
  Anne Studd (instructed by the Solicitor for the Metropolitan Police) for the defendant in the case of U.
  Anne Studd (instructed by the Solicitor for the Durham Constabulary) for the defendant in the case of R.
  Steven Kovats (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the interested party.
Judgment Dates: 29 November 2002

Catchwords

Children and young persons - Young offenders - Final warning scheme - Sex offence - Compatibility with European Convention on Human Rights - ss 65, 66 - s 56 - European Convention on Human Rights, art 6.

The Case

The administration of a reprimand or warning under s65 of the as amended by s56 of the was the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of art6(1) of the Convention. Prima facie, therefore, the claimants were entitled to a fair trial of the allegations made against them attended by all the guarantees which were required by the Convention. That did not mean, however, that the procedures for cautions, reprimands and final warnings were necessarily in breach of art6. Provided there was an effective waiver procedure requiring informed consent by the offender to the procedure being adopted, as in the case of cautions, there would be conformity with the Convention.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.