McGonnell v United Kingdom (2000) 30 EHRR 289

Facts

• Mr. McGonnell, a farmer in Guernsey, applied for planning permission on his land.
• The Royal Court of Guernsey, presided over by the Bailiff, refused the application.
• The Bailiff had previously participated in drafting the planning laws relevant to Mr. McGonnell’s application.
• Mr. McGonnell complained to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), alleging that the Bailiff’s dual role as both lawmaker and judge contravened his right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
• The ECtHR scrutinized the structure of the Guernsey planning system, focusing on the insufficient separation of powers.

Issues

1. Whether the involvement of the Bailiff, who had helped draft the relevant planning legislation, in judicially determining Mr. McGonnell’s application violated the right to an impartial tribunal under Article 6 of the ECHR.
2. Whether structural or apparent bias, even in the absence of actual prejudice, constitutes a breach of Article 6.
3. Whether administrative tribunals, including planning authorities, must meet the same standards of impartiality as courts under Article 6.

Decision

• The ECtHR found that the Bailiff’s dual role—drafting the planning law and later adjudicating on its application—created an appearance of bias.
• The Court held that this appearance of bias, even without evidence of subjective prejudice, was sufficient to breach Article 6.
• The Court applied an objective justification test but found no adequate reason for permitting the Bailiff’s overlapping roles.
• The lack of clear separation between legislative and judicial functions within the Guernsey system resulted in a violation of the right to a fair hearing.

Legal Principles

• Article 6 ECHR guarantees the right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal.
• Objective impartiality requires not only the absence of actual bias but also that justice must be seen to be done; the appearance of bias alone can breach fair trial rights.
• Structural or procedural arrangements that create a risk of bias, or its appearance, are as problematic as actual, demonstrated bias.
• Administrative tribunals making judicial-type decisions are held to the same standards of impartiality as courts.
• Separation of legislative, executive, and judicial functions is necessary to uphold impartiality and public confidence in the justice system.

Conclusion

The judgment in McGonnell v United Kingdom established that fair trial requirements under Article 6 demand robust structural safeguards against bias, holding that both objective and perceived impartiality must be maintained in all tribunals, including administrative bodies. This case continues to guide the structuring of decision-making processes under the European Convention on Human Rights.