Cases violating ICCPR art 14(3)(c) (potential) (1)

Note that committees can record actual or potential violations.

In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality ... to be tried without undue delay.

ICCPR art 14(3)(c)

Rogerson v Australia (HRC, 2002)

Remedy's assessment: Remedied

Northern Territory barrister Andrew Rogerson was receiving treatment for bipolar mood disorder. A client took out a restraining order against him. Mr Rogerson resisted attempts to serve the restraining order, claiming ‘his deranged behaviour [was] indicative of his poor mental state at the time’. He was found in contempt of court and his practising certificate was cancelled. His appeal to the NT Court of Appeal took two years. The HRC found Mr Rogerson had suffered a violation of his right to be tried without delay, but regarded its finding as ‘sufficient remedy’ and recommended no substantive remedies.

Read more on Rogerson v Australia.