THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 52673/99
by G.L.
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13 February 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrW. Fuhrmann,
MrL. Loucaides,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrsH.S. Greve,
MrK. Traja,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze, judges,
MrsS. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 29 September 1999 and registered on 23 November 1999,
Having regard to the communication of the case on 12 September 2000 and its settlement by the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a British national, born in 1960 and living in North Yorkshire. He is represented before the Court by Messrs. Cox Robertson, a firm of solicitors practising in York, the United Kingdom. The respondent Government are represented by Mr H. Llewellyn, Agent of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 8 December 1978 the applicant pleaded guilty to the offence of rape and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. On 4 June 1998 he was arrested by the police on suspicion of the rape of his daughter. On 5 June 1998 he was charged with rape.
The applicant was brought before the Magistrates’ Court on 6 June 1998 and was automatically remanded in custody pursuant to section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. His trial took place between the 22 and 30 of March 1999. He was acquitted by a unanimous verdict of the jury and released from custody on 30 March 1999.
B. Relevant domestic law
Section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 came into force in April 1995 and provided that any person who had been previously convicted of a specified serious offence and who had been again charged with one of those serious offences would not be granted bail pending trial on the latter charge.
Section 56 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 entered into force in September 1998 and amended section 25 of the 1994 Act by substituting the denial of bail for a provision granting bail where it is considered that there are exceptional circumstances which would justify such a grant.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant originally complained about his automatic pre-trial detention pursuant to section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and he invokes Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
By letter dated 13 September 2000 the Court invited the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the case.
By letter dated 20 October 2000 the applicant indicated that the Government had made an offer of settlement which had been accepted.
The Government confirmed, in its letter of 12 January 2001, the terms of the settlement reached: in recognition of the fact that the applicant’s rights had been infringed by section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the applicant was to receive 4000 pounds sterling (GBP) in non-pecuniary damages together with his costs of the Convention proceedings. The Government therefore requested that the case be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.
By letter dated 26 January 2001 the applicant clarified that the amount which had been agreed in respect of the costs of the Convention proceedings was GBP 2614.38. He confirmed that all sums due under the settlement had been already paid.
The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties (Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court). Accordingly, the Court considers that the case should be struck out of its list of cases.
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