The trial court further confirmed the applicant’s guilt by the fact that a cigarette butt had been found at the crime scene with DNA belonging to the applicant.

Prior to conducting the trial and convicting the applicant, the judge who presided the applicant’s trial (Judge J.G.) had accepted an admission of guilt made by two co-accused – S.S. and P.K. – at a preparatory

On 21 July 2003 the trial court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. It established that Mr T.A. had taken explosives in 2001 from a mine where he had worked.

The trial court stated, in a summary manner, that his guilt was confirmed by the available evidence, namely the record of administrative offence, pre-trial written statements from police officers and eyewitnesses

    The court relied on a set of documentary evidence attesting to the fact that the documentation for the semi-trailer in question had been processed by the applicant and that the semi-trailer

parties, who might later be tried separately, could be indispensable for the assessment of the guilt of those on trial.

pleaded guilty during the trial against them.

COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that his trial was not fair because the judge had formed a pre-conceived idea of his guilt, because the main witness, Ms Sh., did not

statement of guilt had been uttered by the judge.

On 23   March 2016 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the trial court’s decision and remitted the criminal case against the applicant to the trial court for consideration on the merits.

The instant case, however, concerned revocation of the suspension of pre-trial detention. Decisions taken in this context could not be regarded as requiring a prior determination of guilt.

As I have said, if you found Robert Firkins guilty you could use the fact of his guilt in your consideration of Lee Firkin’s case.

proceedings and during the trial.

during the trial.

The trial court considered the applicant’s guilt in all the episodes imputed to him proven.

concerns: (1)     the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of bribe taking (from 14 May 2002 to 28 January 2012, with several remittals for additional pre-trial

before he had been proved guilty according to the law.

The judge who presided over the trial (C.K.) had worked with M.A. for at least two and a half years and had previously worked for her as a clerk.