THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 54948/00
by David Wark ARNOTT
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 19 June 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrW. Fuhrmann,
MrL. Loucaides,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrsH.S. Greve,
MrK. Traja,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze, judges,
and S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 17 November 1999 and registered on 17 February 2000,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the applicant’s letter of 23 May 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a British national, born in 1948 and living in Glasgow.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was admitted as a solicitor in Scotland in 1972. From May 1992, he worked as a sole practitioner. From December 1991 until June 1993, he wrongfully used funds from his client account to subsidise the running of his practice.
Following anonymous information from one of the applicant’s employees, the Law Society of Scotland, which regulates the conduct of solicitors in Scotland, commenced an inspection of the applicant’s books on 21 June 1993. When it became clear that the inspection was not routine, the applicant took legal advice and thereafter co-operated with the Law Society’s inspectors and the staff of the Judicial Factor appointed by the Law Society to identify the shortfall of approximately 146,000 pounds sterling (GBP) and the clients to which it related. The applicant was suspended from practising immediately in June 1993 and was struck off the register of solicitors in early 1994. The applicant was advised by the Law Society Inspectors and by the staff of the Judicial Factor that the matter would be reported to the Crown Office with a view to prosecution and the applicant believes this was done in or about 1993.
Intimation was made to the police at least by November 1993, as set out in trial judge’s note on appeal. The case was formally reported by the police to the Procurator Fiscal in July 1995, but the final report was not put to the Procurator Fiscal until some time in 1996.
In March 1996 the police requested an interview with the applicant. When asked for relevant documents, the applicant referred the police officer to the information provided to the Law Society and the Judicial Factor.
A petition was served on the applicant on account of the embezzlement on 15 October 1997.
In August 1998, no indictment had been served on the applicant and he applied for a six month extension of the year time limit in August 1998. Had the applicant not applied for this extension, it is understood that the Crown had scheduled his case to be heard in September 1998.
An indictment was served on the applicant in February 1999 for a trial date in March 1999. The applicant’s case was heard on 26 March 1999 at the High Court in Edinburgh. He was convicted and sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s appeal against sentence was heard on 2 June 1999 but was unsuccessful.
COMPLAINT
The applicant originally complained that the criminal charge against him was not determined within a reasonable time, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The Court notes that the applicant has stated in his letter dated 23 May 2001 that he would like to withdraw his application.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court finds that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued.
Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy