The applicant and K, who both had been on the scene of crime, denied having shot L and accused one another.

and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a United Kingdom national, Mr Robert Edward

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.

on 10   September 1998, Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court, Having deliberated, decides

Before both the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, the applicant denied the statements he had given to the police, alleging that they were given under duress.

Under section 87(2) of the 2003 Act, if the judge decides this question in the negative he or she must order the person’s discharge.

Edouard DO..., propriétaire du lot n 499, 90 / de M. Pierre DR..., propriétaire du lot n 507, 91 / de M.

Both denied the accusations, stating that on the day of the incident they had been patrolling the streets, but denying that they had chased anyone.

All the witnesses denied having had sexual intercourse with C. and stated that there was no outsider on the company’s premises who could have had intercourse with her. 10.

However, the remainder of the allegations set out at paragraphs 4 and 6 of the applicant’s pleading were denied.

Furthermore, neither the applicant nor his counsel raised any further objection about being denied access to any writing covered by that section.

After a considerable delay during which the Ministry of Defence denied receiving the President's request for documents, a reply was given in May 1995...”

The applicant denied being a member of the IRA. One of the Sergeants gave evidence as to the identification parade. 11.

The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that Mrs M. had been denied a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal.

Moreover, the Court considered that the United Kingdom could not be criticised for not having abolished WP earlier and that it was not unreasonable of the legislature to decide to introduce the reform

James   McDaid, Mr   Hugh Campbell, Mr   William Russell Young, Mr   Derek Finch, Mr Nigel David Gooch, Mr   Marcus Paul Smart, Mr   Jason   Lee Roberts, Mr Gareth Edward

They are not required to decide legal issues, but instead represent the lay element in the process of judicial decision-making.

Mr Edwards was represented by Ms L. Rasool, a lawyer practising in London with Lewis Nedas & Co Solicitors, assisted by Mr M. Summers and Mr C. Harris, counsel.

B..., qui lui reprochait d'avoir pris un congé sabbatique de plusieurs mois aux Etats-Unis, avait décidé de se donner les motifs de le licencier en le destabilisant ; qu'à cette fin, et cependant que des