paragraph 2, of the Administration of Justice Act (particularly confirmed suspicion of the prisoner's guilt) or concerning certain other investigative steps according to this act may act as trial or appeal

Their statements could have encouraged the public to believe that the applicant had been guilty before he had been proved guilty with final effect in accordance with the law.

If the trial judge examined documents to determine if the belief evidence was reliable, this would equally amount to the trial judge determining guilt or innocence by reference to material which was not

Two separate trials took place. The first trial covered the series of sexual offences; the second, the murder and related offences.

of having committed an offence before that guilt is established by a court (see, Allenet de Ribemont v.

the fairness of the criminal trial itself.

DU BAIL, ALORS QU'ELLE CONSTATE ENCORE QUE, POSTERIEUREMENT AU CONGE SIGNIFIE PAR LES BAILLEURS, LES LOCATAIRES " ONT RECIDIVE EN CONSTRUISANT UNE NOUVELLE VERANDA, AINSI QU'UN CHASSIS DOUBLE D'UNE TRIPLE

The applicant’s trial followed earlier criminal proceedings against two of his alleged co ‑ conspirators, who had been convicted of several burglaries.

But although they cannot of themselves, those failures, prove guilt, you may hold that failure against them in deciding whether he is guilty. You don’t have to. It is for you to decide.

19847/07 Judgment 9.6.2009 [Section IV] Article 6 Article 6-3-c Defence in person Refusal to grant accused leave to appear at appellate hearing concerning questions of fact relevant to the issue of guilt

[X] [P], domicilié [Adresse 10], 8°/ à la société Guyot recyclage, société à responsabilité limitée, dont le siège est [Adresse 14], 9°/ à la société Eiffage route Ile-de-France, Centre Ouest, société

On 15 June 2012 the Prymorskyy District Court of Odessa (“the first-instance court”) ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The applicant appealed against that decision.

Subsequently the Court of Criminal Inquiry rejected the applicants’ request that the trial be suspended pending a decision from the European Court.

and law, the privilege against self ‑ incrimination, pre-trial publicity and premature expressions, by the trial court or by other public officials, of a defendant’s guilt (see Allen v.

The juror stated that during the trial the presiding Judge Sht. had often visited the deliberations room, that he had spoken of the applicant’s guilt as if it had been already established and that he had

    V.K., who had his own defence lawyer during the trial, pleaded not guilty. 23 .

the guilt of the two bankers, who had assumed responsibility for their actions and cooperated with the authorities.

In its judgment, the trial judge made certain comments with regards to the applicant’s involvement. The applicant complains that the trial judge’s comments in case no.