Application No. 26288/95
by Martin HAMILTON
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 27 November 1996, the following members being present:
Mrs. J. LIDDY, President
MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs. M. HION
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 24 January 1994
by Martin HAMILTON against the United Kingdom and registered on
25 January 1995 under file No. 26288/95;
Having regard to :
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on
3 January 1996 and the correspondence between the Secretariat and
the applicant and his representatives since January 1996;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be
summarised as follows.
The applicant is a United Kingdom citizen born in 1961 and
residing in Glasgow. He is currently in prison.
On 21 April 1992 the High Court convicted the applicant and three
other persons for having conspired to rob the office of a Glasgow
company. The applicant was sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment, two
others of his accomplices to 15 years' imprisonment and the fourth
accused to 12 years' imprisonment. The applicant was legally
represented during the trial.
The applicant appealed against his conviction. He inquired
unsuccessfully about the possibilities to obtain legal aid but did not
submit a formal application for legal aid to the Scottish Legal Aid
Board.
On 24 June 1993 the applicant and two of his accomplices appeared
before the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh for the hearing of
their appeal. The applicant was represented by counsel who informed
the Court that the applicant had been refused legal aid but had made
private funds available for the purposes of his appeal. The
applicant's counsel sought and obtained a continuation of the appeal
for a later date.
The appeal came before the Court again on 7 October 1993, when
the applicant presented his case in person. He stated that the trial
judge had misdirected the jury, referring to several particular
passages of the minutes from the trial. The Court dismissed the
appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 3 (c) of the
Convention that he did not receive legal aid for purposes of the appeal
proceedings.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 24 January 1994 and registered
on 25 January 1995.
On 18 October 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the
application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48
para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure.
The Government's written observations were submitted on 3 January
1996. On 8 January 1996 a copy of these observations was sent to the
applicant's representatives who were invited to submit, before
27 February 1996, their observations in reply. No such observations
were received by the Commission.
On 5 March 1996 the Commission granted the applicant legal aid.
By letters sent to the applicant's representatives and to him
directly on 10 April 1996 and again on 9 May 1996 by registered mail,
the applicant was invited to state whether he intended to pursue his
application and was warned about the provision of Article 30
para. 1 (a) of the Convention. On 15 May 1996 the applicant's
representatives replied and requested an extension "of the hearing of
the case" because they could not "attend Strasbourg" at the end of
June. They also mentioned that they had had lost contact with the
applicant for some time due to his transfer to another prison, but that
they had found his new address. On 22 May 1996 the applicant's
solicitors were informed that the time-limit for a written reply to the
Government's observations could not be extended as the extension had
been requested long after the expiry of the initial time-limit. The
Secretariat's letter also indicated to the applicant's representatives
that if they nevertheless wished to submit observations in reply, they
could do so.
On 1 July 1996 the applicant's representatives wrote to the
Commission stating only that the applicant still intended to pursue his
application.
On 2 July 1996 the Commission (First Chamber) considered the
state of the proceedings in the present case and, noting that the
applicant has not replied to the Government's observations, decided to
put to him and to his representatives specific questions on the
admissibility and the merits of the application.
On 8 July 1996 the Secretariat sent to the applicant's
representatives and to the applicant directly, by registered mail,
letters inviting them to reply in writing, before 2 September 1996, to
the specific questions put. The letters also indicated that failure
to answer could lead the Commission to conclude that the applicant did
not seriously intend to pursue his application. No reply was received.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission notes that the applicant, represented by counsel,
initially did not react when invited to submit observations in reply
to the Government's observations. Not until two months and a half
after the expiry of the time-limit set for this purpose, and only
following two warning letters, did the applicant's solicitors express
their intention to pursue the matter. However, when given ample
opportunity to do so, by answering specific questions, they did not
react. Furthermore, the applicant's representatives were repeatedly
warned that this lack of activity on their part might lead the
Commission to the conclusion that the applicant did not seriously
intend to pursue the application.
Moreover, after March 1996 the Secretariat contacted the
applicant directly, by registered mail, but no response was received.
In these circumstances, the Commission concludes pursuant to
Article 30 para. 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention that the applicant
does not intend to pursue his application and that it is, therefore,
no longer justified to continue the examination of the petition.
Moreover, there are no reasons of a general character affecting respect
for Human Rights as defined in this Convention which require the
further examination of this application.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy