FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 4/05
by Alan John DAVIES
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Nicolas Bratza,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 December 2004,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Alan John Davies, is a British national who was born in 1974 and lives in Kirkcaldy. He was represented before the Court by Mr J. Litterick, of Higgins, Morledge & Litterick, a firm of lawyers practising in Alloa. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr D. Walton of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant received a notice from the police, pursuant to section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, requiring him to name the driver of his car at the time of suspected offences. He filled in and returned the notice.
He was charged with contraventions of sections 5(1)a, 3, 170(2) and (4) and 170(3) and (4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
On 29 May 2001, the Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court convicted him of three charges and acquitted him of the fourth. His objection at trial to the use of information provided by him to the police was rejected.
On 19 July 2001, he was fined a total of GBP 425, disqualified from holding a licence for five years on the first charge and had his licence endorsed concerning the other two.
The applicant appealed to the High Court of Justiciary.
On 28 May 2004, the High Court of Justiciary refused his appeal and refused permission to appeal to the Privy Council.
By letter of 28 July 2004, the applicant was informed that the Privy Council had refused special leave to appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention that he had been subject to compulsion to give incriminating evidence in violation of the right to remain silent and the privilege against self‑incrimination.
THE LAW
On 6 July 2007, the Court wrote to the applicant’s representative and the Government requesting their comments in light of the Grand Chamber’s judgment in O’Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02, ECHR 2007‑... before 10 September 2007.
The Government submitted their comments on 9 September 2007. No comments were received from the applicant’s representative.
A second letter was sent to the applicant’s representative by registered post on 25 September 2007 in which his attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant’s representative did not reply.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 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 continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Lawrence EarlyLech Garlicki
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy