McGonnell v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 289

Court: European Court of Human Rights

Facts: In 1988, a draft Detailed Development Plan was proposed in Guernsey that would exclude the applicant’s land from residential use. In 1990, the States of Deliberation, Guernsey’s legislative body, debated and adopted the Detailed Development Plan, with Deputy Bailiff Mr. Graham Dorey presiding over the session. Three years later, the applicant submitted a formal application to change the use of his land, which was rejected. The applicant then appealed to the Royal Court, which was presided over by Sir Graham Dorey, the same Deputy Bailiff. The applicant claimed a breach of his right to a hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, arguing that the dual roles of the Bailiff (judicial, legislative, and executive) compromised his impartiality.

Issue: Did the involvement of the Deputy Bailiff in both the legislative process and the judicial appeal violate the applicant's right to an independent and impartial tribunal under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)?

Held: The European Court of Human Rights found that there was a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR.

Key Judicial Statements: The Court asserted: "The mere fact that the Deputy Bailiff presided over the States of Deliberation when the zoning plan was adopted in 1990 was capable of casting doubt on his impartiality." The judgment clarified that the determination of impartiality does not require adherence to specific constitutional doctrines, stating: “The question is always whether, in a given case, the requirements of the Convention are met.” It emphasized that the assessment focused on whether the Bailiff maintained the necessary "appearance" of independence and "objective" impartiality, indicating that the context of his dual roles led to concerns regarding his impartiality in the planning appeal.

💡 Leveluplaw: The Court dismissed the argument that the Deputy Bailiff’s roles were purely positional and not functional, affirming that his prior involvement in the legislative decision regarding the development plan created a legitimate doubt regarding his impartiality when later adjudicating on the appeal. This case highlights the critical importance of maintaining clear boundaries between legislative and judicial functions to uphold the principle of impartiality as required under the ECHR.