Chapter 7 • The Right to a Fair Trial: Part II – From Trial to Final Judgement The right to a fair trial was further violated in the Bricmont case, where the applicant had been convicted on several criminal charges with the Court of Appeal relying on accusations of the civil party, a member of the royal family, who had joined the criminal prosecution in order to seek damages. However, on some of the charges on which the Court of Appeal found the applicant guilty, the latter was convicted after proceedings which violated his defence rights as guaranteed by article 6; indeed, the applicant had had no “opportunity, afforded by an examination or a confrontation, to have evidence taken from the complainant, in his presence, on all the charges”, there having been confrontation only in respect of one count.10 The right to a fair trial can be violated in many ways, but as a general principle it has always to be borne in mind that the accused person must at all times be given a genuine possibility of answering charges, challenging evidence, cross-examining witnesses, and doing so in a dignified atmosphere. Failures and shortcomings at the stage of criminal investigations may seriously jeopardize the right to fair trial proceedings and thereby also prejudice the right to be presumed innocent. 3.2.1 The right of access to a court or tribunal With regard to the right of access to the courts, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that article 6(1) “secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal”; where a prisoner was refused permission by the United Kingdom Home Secretary to consult a solicitor in order to bring a civil action for libel against a prison officer, this refusal constituted a violation of the applicant’s “right to go before a court as guaranteed by” article 6(1).11 The same issue arose in the case of Campbell and Fell where the applicants complained of a delay by the prison authorities in granting them permission to seek legal advice for injuries they had sustained during an incident in a prison. Although they were eventually granted the permission they sought, the Court emphasized that “for evidentiary and other reasons speedy access to legal advice is important in personal-injury cases” and that “hindrance, even of a temporary character, may contravene the Convention”.12 It is also of interest to point out that in cases where administrative authorities decide administrative offences which amount to a “criminal charge” under article 6(1) of the European Convention – such as cases of speeding on motorways – and, if the decisions taken by the administrative authorities do not themselves satisfy the requirements of article 6(1) of the Convention, they “must be subject to subsequent control by a ‘judicial body that has full jurisdiction’”.13 This means that the judicial body must have “the power to quash in all respects, on questions of law and fact”, the 10 Eur. Court HR, Bricmont Case, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A, No. 158, pp. 30-31, paras. 84-85. 11 Eur. Court HR, Golder Case v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A, No. 18, p. 18, para. 36 and p. 19, para. 40 at p. 20. 12 Eur. Court HR, Case of Campbell and Fell, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A, No. 80, p. 46, para. 107. 13 Eur. Court HR, Case of Palaoro v. Austria, judgment of 23 October 1995, Series A, No. 329-B, p. 40, para. 41. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 257