 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
(i)
Public hearing
Thus, in B and P v United Kingdom
the court gave examples of "exceptional
circumstances" which would justify a restriction on the right to a public hearing as
follows :-
"...... it is established in the Court's case-law that, even in a criminal law context where there
is a high expectation of publicity, it may on occasion be necessary under Article 6 to limit the
open and public nature of proceedings in order, for example, to protect the safety or privacy
of witnesses or to promote the free exchange of information and opinion in the pursuit of
justice."
(ii)
Public pronouncement of judgment
In the same case, while noting that Art 6(1) states without qualification that "Judgment
shall be pronounced publicly", the Court upheld as proper, a restriction on public
pronouncement in a case involving the interests of children, stating :-
"Having regard to the nature of the proceedings and the form of publicity applied by the
national law, the Court considers that a literal interpretation of the terms of Article 6 § 1
concerning the pronouncement of judgments would not only be unnecessary for the purposes
of public scrutiny but might even frustrate the primary aim of Article 6 § 1, which is to secure
a fair hearing."
(iii)
Oral hearing
Similarly, it has been held that where the proceedings at first instance raised limited
issues and did not raise any issue of fact or law requiring oral submissions, the court
could properly dispense with an oral hearing and decide the case on the basis of the
parties' written submissions.
Notes
Nos 36337/97 and 35974/97, 24.4.01 at §37.
At §48. In Hong Kong, BOR 10 qualifies the right to public pronouncement of judgments "where the
interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or
the guardianship of children." It is likely that in other cases, where publicity would be contrary to
the interests of justice, the court would be held entitled to restrict such publicity in appropriate and
proportionate terms.
Jacobsson v Sweden (No 2) No. 8/1997/792/993, Judgment, 19.2.98 at §49.
|
 |
|