ECHR Act 2003

The main difference seems to be issues of delay and civil fairness. The ECHR hates delay in cases while in Ireland delay is almost par for the course. The Constitution does not protect civil fairness in the course of a trial unless it amounts to a denial of access to the courts.

McFarlane is the case on criminal delay where they didn't prosecute fast enough.

I can't recall the name of the civil case, Doran v Ireland or something (I think there was another one too in about 2004). Introduced the concept that it was not just the civil parties that have an obligation to progress cases, but judges have a duty to do so too.

Arguably Article 6 is unhelpful in an Irish context because most other signatory states do not have a right to trial by jury, so Article 38 is broader. This means that the Special Criminal Court would be perfectly fine by ECHR standards.

Ireland also has much stronger exclusionary rules than other signatory states and arguably Article 6 does not permit decisions on the correctness of the legislation itself e.g. CC v. Ireland, Dokie v. Ireland etc. So the Irish constitution provides a much better system of protection in criminal matters, but Article 6 provides better civil protections and greater rights to expediency.

I suppose also the main difference is harder to explain, but relates to the fact that there are two sets of courts, both of whom have developed different jurisprudence on what is fair and what is not.

lallychops wrote:

personally i think it must have at least given further effect to the minorities in this counrty?

234 wrote: »

The protection of minorities in relation to the right to a fair trial?

The minority of people who insist that a fair criminal trial is a good thing I suppose, as opposed to the majority who want the presumption of innocence reversed and hanging to be reinstated.