About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

14 Edinburgh L. Rev. 141 (2010)
Glor v. Switzerland: Article 14 ECHR, Disability and Non-Discrimination

handle is hein.journals/edinlr14 and id is 141 raw text is: This case highlights a tension in the treatment of mentally disordered offenders in judicial processes. In court, psychiatric evidence should be given no greater weight than other evidence when determining insanity or a plea in bar of trial. Neither a jury nor a judge is bound by the evidence of the expert witnesses. In mental health tribunals, psychiatric evidence is generally the only evidence, and tribunals may have to choose between conflicting psychiatric evidence and at the same time wrestle with how that evidence fits with what is new legislation. When the opinion of experts is central to a judical hearing but the decision-makers can choose to ignore the expert opinion, this raises questions as to who is more expert in interpreting legislation that is applied daily in hospitals (but not in courts). The creation of the MHTS and the inclusion of medical and general members (who have direct experience of mental illness either professionally or personally) are clearly attempts to address these tensions. However, this decision suggests that clarification of both the content of experts' evidence and the decision-making of the MHTS is needed. Clare Connelly, University of Glasgow Nicola Hodelet Ailsa Hospital, Ayr The authors wish to thank Edward McHugh for his helpful comments on earlier drafts. EdinLR Vol 14 pp 141-146 DOI: 10.3366/E136498090900105X Glor v Switzerland: Article 14 ECHR, Disability and Non-Discrimination The decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Glor v Switzerland,' which has significant implications for persons with physical and mental disabilities,2 is to be welcomed. Sven Glor, a Swiss national, suffered from diabetes and was declared unfit for Swiss military service, despite his expressed willingness to engage in it.3 According to Swiss case law, persons not engaging in military service but assessed as being at least 40% disabled were not liable to pay the substantial military-service tax.4 Mr Glor was assessed as falling below this threshold. His appeal against this, claiming 1 App No 13444/04, 30 Apr 2009. 2 See Mental Disability Advocacy Center, Three disability 'firsts' in a European Court of Human Rights case, 2 Jun 2009 (available at http://Www.mdcac.info/en/node/187). 3 His type of diabetes did not, however, prevent him from working as a lorry driver. 4 E 477 per year for the duration of the compulsory service period (at least eight years). Vol 14 2010 141 ANALYSIS

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most