Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

T. v. / V. v. the United Kingdom

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Human Rights Case Digest

This was the first case in which the Court had to examine how the guarantees of the right of an accused to participate effectively in a criminal trial should apply to proceedings against children, and in particular whether procedures which are generally considered to safeguard the rights of adults on trial, such as publicity, should be abrogated in respect of children in order to promote their understanding and participation. It considered it essential that a child charged with an offence should be dealt with in a manner which took full account of his age, level of maturity and intellectual and emotional capacities, and that steps were taken to promote his ability to understand and participate in the proceedings. In respect of a young child charged with a grave offence attracting high levels of media and public interest, this could mean that it would be necessary to conduct the hearing in private, so as to reduce as far as possible the child's feelings of intimidation and inhibition, or, where appropriate, to provide for only selected attendance rights and judicious reporting. The setting of a “tariff”, that is the maximum period of time for which a person could be held, by the U.K. Home Secretary, a person not independent of the executive, was a violation of the Convention. The absence of a tariff prevented any possibility of judicial review of the continued lawfulness of detention.

10.1163/157181399400839011
/content/journals/10.1163/157181399400839011
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/157181399400839011
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/157181399400839011
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/157181399400839011
1999-10-01
2016-12-09

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Human Rights Case Digest — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation