Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 8139/09)

Key paragraph(s) can be found below the document.

The “flagrant denial of justice” test

259. In the Court’s case-law, the term “flagrant denial of justice” has been synonymous with a trial which is manifestly contrary to the provisions of Article 6 or the principles embodied therein (Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 84, ECHR 2006‑II; Stoichkov, cited above, § 56, Drozd and Janousek cited above, § 110). Although it has not yet been required to define the term in more precise terms, the Court has nonetheless indicated that certain forms of unfairness could amount to a flagrant denial of justice. These have included:

– conviction in absentia with no possibility subsequently to obtain a fresh determination of the merits of the charge (Einhorn, cited above, § 33; Sejdovic, cited above, § 84; Stoichkov, cited above, § 56);

– a trial which is summary in nature and conducted with a total disregard for the rights of the defence (Bader and Kanbor, cited above, § 47);

– detention without any access to an independent and impartial tribunal to have the legality the detention reviewed (Al-Moayad, cited above, § 101);

– deliberate and systematic refusal of access to a lawyer, especially for an individual detained in a foreign country (ibid.).