CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 août 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 19 September 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 61280/21 Obina Christopher EZEOKE against the United Kingdom lodged on 15 December 2021 communicated on 31 August 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 20 September 2016 the applicant was charged with murder. His criminal proceedings began on 21 March 2017 but needed to be postponed due to the ill health of the trial judge. He subsequently had four separate sets of proceedings, three of which needed to be aborted for various reasons including, inter alia , the failure of the jury to reach an agreement and complications arising from the Covid pandemic. He was eventually convicted on 9 September 2020. On 6 October 2021 the Court of Appeal denied him permission to appeal against conviction. He complains under Article   6 that the proceedings violated his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular was the length of time between each separate set of proceedings appropriate and justified, having particular regard to the fact that the applicant remained in custody throughout?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge(s) against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? Did the length of the proceedings, insofar as it affected the applicant’s memory and that of his alibi, render the trial unfair, particularly in light of the fact that the applicant’s defence was based heavily on the recollection of witnesses?